SC reaffirms mining ban within 1 km of wildlife sanctuaries

"We direct that the state government shall notify the area comprising 126 compartments as notified in the 1968 notification, excluding six compartments (KP-2, KP-10, KP-11, KP-12, KP-13 and KP-14) as a wildlife sanctuary within a period of three months from the date of this judgment," said the Bench, which also included Justice K Vinod Chandran.

Regarding restriction on mining activities within one km from national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, the Bench said, “It has been the consistent view of this court that mining activities within one km of the protected area will be hazardous to the wildlife. Though in the case of Goa Foundation, the said directions were issued with respect to the State of Goa, we find that such directions need to be issued on a pan-India basis.

“We direct that mining within national parks and wildlife sanctuaries and within an area of one km from the boundary of such national park or wildlife sanctuary shall not be permissible," the Bench said, citing the top court’s order dated April 26, 2023.

The verdict came on petitions raising issues related to the notification of areas under Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary (SWL) and the Sasangdaburu Conservation Reserve (SCR) as a conservation reserve in Jharkhand. The proposal to notify the Saranda and Sasangdaburu forest areas in West Singhbhum district as a wildlife sanctuary and conservation reserve respectively has been pending for years.

Directing the Jharkhand Government to notify the region as a wildlife sanctuary, the top court clarified that the rights of tribal people and forest dwellers in the region should be protected as per the Forest Rights Act.

It asked the state government to widely publicise its directions.

The Jharkhand Government had initially sought to exclude 57,519.41 hectares of forestland, saying it was inhabited for centuries by the Ho, Munda, Uraon and allied Adivasi communities. It had contended that the move would help safeguard their forest rights and protect schools and educational institutions already existing within that region. However, in an affidavit before the top court, it submitted that an area of 57,519.41 hectares was erroneously arrived at and the area of 31,468.25 hectares will be notified as a wildlife sanctuary.

The Bench, however, rejected the state government's submission and said the provisions contained in Section 24(2)(c) of the provisions of the WPA a and Section 3 read with Section 4(1) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, amply protect the rights of tribals and forest dwellers even after declaration of the said area as a wildlife sanctuary.

“The bogey that on declaration of wildlife sanctuary, the habitations and rights of the tribals and traditional forest dwellers will be lost and vital public infrastructures like educational institutions, roads, etc., will have to be demolished is only a figment of imagination of the state. Rather than taking such a stand before this court, we are of the considered view that the state should have educated the tribals and forest dwellers residing in the said areas about the rights available to them under the FRA as well as the WPA," the top court said.