SC bars mining in 10-km radius of wetland in HP without Centre’s nod

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that no mining activity will be permitted within a 10-kilometre radius of a wetland conservation reserve in Himachal Pradesh without prior permission of the Union government

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that no mining activity will be permitted within a 10-kilometre radius of a wetland conservation reserve in Himachal Pradesh without prior permission of the Union government.

HT Image

The court further directed the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) or the Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife (SC-NBWL) to inform it within a month about the existence of wetland conservation reserves in the state.

In February 2024, the top court imposed the 10-kilometre radius ban on mining in the context of Asan wetland, a Ramsar site, situated in Uttarakhand. Based on this order, a public interest litigation was filed before the Himachal Pradesh high court to extend the same rule to wetlands which are conservation reserves or community reserves in Himachal Pradesh.

Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar Convention, an environmental treaty established in 1971 to conserve biodiversity, particularly waterfowl habitats.

The state of HP moved an application in the top court seeking clarification as it stated that the 10-km regulation by the court was specific only to Asan wetland and cannot be mechanically applied to them.

Deciding the application, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said, “If a wetland conservation reserve is found or identified in Himachal Pradesh, in that case, the direction issued by us on February 14, 2024 shall apply mutatis mutandis in case of Himachal Pradesh also.”

The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said that the direction is issued as the states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh form part of a contiguous Himalayan terrain separated by a geographical line separating the two states.

Unlike in Uttarakhand, where the Asan wetland was identified, the court felt that the identification of wetland is a question of fact that is to be determined by experts. It held, “We direct SC-NBWL or alternatively MoEFCC to take a specific decision on the request already made by the HP government and determine whether or not there are any wetland conservation reserves in HP. Let an appropriate decision be taken within one month.”

The bench said, “If there is a wetland area in Uttarakhand or Himachal Pradesh, only because of a demarcation line on paper, we cannot pass two different orders for the entire Himalayan terrain. It will be governed by the same rule unless you are able to show there is no wetland.”

The concept of conservation reserves was introduced by the 2003 amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 with the insertion of Section 36A. The court while passing the February 2024 order in the context of Asan wetland held that such conservation reserves, which are adjacent to the National Parks and Sanctuaries, link one protected area with another and are essential for protecting landscapes, seascapes, flora and fauna and their habitat.

By the same amendment, a conservation reserve or a community reserve notified under the Act came within the definition of “protected area”.

The high court of Uttrakhand in its order of July 2, 2015 held that mining around Asan wetland conservation reserve will be permitted only if the mining activity is located beyond 10 kilometres from the wetland site.

This order of the HC was initially challenged by the Uttarakhand government , but the state withdrew the appeal to file a review against the HC order. The HC dismissed the review plea against which the state did not file an appeal making it final and binding against the state.

Considering these facts, the top court in its February 2024 order said, “By way of interim order we direct that no mining activities would be carried out within 10 kms. radius of the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve without the project proponent obtaining permission from the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife and/or MoEFCC.”

The court held that one of the primary reasons for passing such an order was to preserve the wetland, declared as a Ramsar site under the Ramsar Convention. Later in October 2024, the court clarified that its order shall not be seen as laying down universal guidelines for all conservation reserves and community reserves. As the Centre had already framed guidelines to be followed by the state governments on the restrictions to be imposed on a case to case basis, the court refused to pass any general order in this regard.