2022 (6) TMI 1517 - SC - Indian Laws

Mining activities in and around Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary - Constitution of buffer zones on eco-sensitive zones (ESZ) in respect of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries - divergence of views among the various stakeholders - HELD THAT - The Guidelines framed on 9th February 2011 appears to be reasonable and the view of the Standing Committee is accpeted that uniform Guidelines may not be possible in respect of each sanctuary or national parks for maintaining ESZ. It is opined, however, that a minimum width of 1 kilometre ESZ ought to be maintained in respect of the protected forests, which forms part of the recommendations of the CEC in relation to Category B protected forests. This would be the standard formula, subject to changes in special circumstances. The CEC s recommendation is considered that the ESZ should be relatable to the area covered by a protected forest but the Standing Committee s view that the area of a protected forest may not always be a reasonable criteria also merits consideration. It was argued that the 1 km wide no development zone may not be feasible in all cases and specific instances were given for Sanjay Gandhi National Park and Guindy National Park in Mumbai and Chennai metropolis respectively which have urban activities in very close proximity. These sanctuaries shall form special cases. In the given facts concerning the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary, the margin of 25 metres as contemplated in the 1994 Mineral Policy of the State of Rajasthan is grossly inadequate. Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary is treated as a special case for fixing the ESZ as in the past, the buffer zone varied from 25 metres to 100 metres. ESZ of 500 metres would be a reasonable buffer zone, within which subsisting activities which does not come within the prohibited list as per the Guidelines of 9th February 2011 could be carried on. But for commencing of any new activity which would be otherwise permissible, the ESZ norm of one kilometre shall be maintained for Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Mining activities in and around Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary.
2. Prescribing eco-sensitive zones (ESZ) surrounding wildlife sanctuaries and national parks.
3. Implementation and modification of court orders concerning forest resource protection.
4. Compensation and reclamation for illegal mining activities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Mining Activities in and Around Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary:

The judgment originates from a writ petition aimed at protecting forest lands, particularly focusing on the Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in Rajasthan. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) reported extensive illegal mining activities within the sanctuary, violating the Forest (Conservation) Act and the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The court emphasized the need to cancel mining leases within forest areas and safety zones, recommending a 100-meter safety zone for existing mines and a 500-meter zone for new ones. The court directed the reclamation and rehabilitation of mined areas and proposed exemplary compensation for illegal extraction. The court also highlighted the necessity of demarcating sanctuary boundaries to prevent further encroachments.

2. Prescribing Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ):

The court addressed the broader issue of establishing ESZs around wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. It acknowledged the CEC's recommendations and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) guidelines, which suggest a flexible, site-specific approach to ESZs, generally extending up to 10 kilometers. However, the court mandated a minimum ESZ of one kilometer from the boundaries of protected areas, with exceptions for urban areas like Sanjay Gandhi National Park and Guindy National Park, where this might not be feasible. The court stressed that activities within ESZs should adhere to the guidelines, prohibiting new permanent structures and certain commercial activities.

3. Implementation and Modification of Court Orders:

The judgment considered several interlocutory applications from mining firms seeking to continue operations. The court allowed impleadment of affected parties, emphasizing the public interest nature of the litigation. It reiterated the importance of sustainable development, balancing economic needs with environmental protection. The court directed state authorities to list existing structures within ESZs and ensure compliance with guidelines. It also provided a mechanism for states to propose modifications to ESZ boundaries in overwhelming public interest, subject to approval by the CEC and MoEF&CC.

4. Compensation and Reclamation for Illegal Mining Activities:

The court directed the CEC to quantify compensation for illegal mining within the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary and recommend measures for compensatory afforestation and reclamation. The CEC was tasked with assessing the environmental degradation and proposing monetary compensation. The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive approach to address past violations and prevent future encroachments, ensuring that mining and other activities do not compromise the ecological integrity of protected areas.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the court's commitment to preserving India's forest resources while allowing for economic activities under strict regulatory frameworks. It highlights the need for coordinated efforts between state and central authorities to implement eco-sensitive measures effectively.