The Supreme Court has directed the Union Government and the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) to ascertain whether any Wetland Conservation Reserve falls within the relevant areas of Himachal Pradesh before determining the applicability of the 10-kilometre restriction on mining activities.
The direction assumes significance in the context of mining operations in Himachal Pradesh situated in proximity to the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve, which lies in neighbouring Uttarakhand. The dispute concerns the extent to which the environmental safeguards applicable to the wetland can operate beyond its territorial boundary and affect mining activities undertaken within Himachal Pradesh.
The Court has sought a factual and statutory determination from the competent authorities before the regulatory restraint is mechanically extended to mining operations located outside the notified wetland or conservation reserve.
The issue has arisen against the backdrop of earlier Supreme Court directions concerning restrictions on mining within a specified radius of ecologically sensitive areas. The Court’s earlier orders had raised the question whether mining activity within 10 kilometres of a Wetland Conservation Reserve could be permitted without obtaining the requisite clearance or approval from the competent wildlife authorities.
The Himachal Pradesh Government had approached the Supreme Court seeking clarification concerning the applicability of the restriction to mining operations located within its territory but falling within the 10-kilometre radial distance from the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve in Uttarakhand.
The State has contended that a blanket application of the restriction could have substantial ramifications for mining operations that have been undertaken pursuant to statutory permissions and environmental clearances issued by the competent authorities.
The material placed before the Court indicates that several mining leaseholders and stone-crushing units operate in the concerned belt. Earlier proceedings before the Himachal Pradesh High Court had also brought the inter-State boundary issue into focus, with reports indicating the existence of mining leases and stone crushers within the buffer area associated with the Asan Conservation Reserve.
The controversy is further complicated by the question of territorial jurisdiction. Since the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve is situated in Uttarakhand, the State of Himachal Pradesh has questioned whether activities carried out beyond the notified reserve, albeit within a specified radial distance, can automatically attract the regulatory regime applicable to the protected area.
The Supreme Court’s latest direction seeks to resolve this issue through an objective determination of the ecological and statutory status of the areas in question.
The Court has directed the Centre and the NBWL to examine whether Wetland Conservation Reserves exist in the relevant portions of Himachal Pradesh and to place the necessary factual position before it. This determination would assist the Court in deciding whether the 10-kilometre mining restraint can be invoked in respect of the concerned activities.
The matter also raises broader questions concerning the interface between environmental protection, statutory clearances and the regulatory jurisdiction exercised over ecologically sensitive zones.
Environmental jurisprudence has consistently recognised that protected areas and their surrounding ecosystems require enhanced safeguards against activities capable of causing ecological degradation. At the same time, the regulatory restrictions must operate within the contours of the statutory framework and the factual circumstances governing the protected area in question.
The Supreme Court’s approach in the present proceedings indicates that the applicability of an environmental restraint cannot be determined solely by geographical proximity. The precise legal status of the area, its relationship with the notified conservation reserve and the applicable statutory regime must first be established.
The issue is particularly significant for mining operations because extraction activity can have consequences extending beyond the boundaries of an individual leasehold area. The ecological impact of mining may include alteration of terrain, degradation of water resources, habitat disturbance and cumulative environmental stress, making the determination of an appropriate regulatory buffer a matter of substantial public interest.
The proceedings also underline the importance of inter-State coordination in environmental governance, particularly where an ecologically sensitive zone is situated close to a State boundary and commercial activities in a neighbouring State may potentially affect the protected ecosystem.
The Supreme Court’s direction to the Centre and NBWL therefore places the factual and statutory assessment at the forefront before any definitive conclusion is reached regarding the applicability of the 10-kilometre restriction.
The matter will now proceed on the basis of the report and clarification to be furnished by the competent authorities, following which the Court is expected to determine the legal consequences for mining activities operating in the disputed zone.
The post Supreme Court directs Centre,NBWL to verify wetland conservation reserves in Himachal before enforcing 10-Km mining buffer appeared first on India Legal.