E-Paper
SC summons U’khand official in Bageshwar mining case
The Supreme Court will hear Uttarakhand's DMO Nazia Hassan, whose conflicting statement about mining leases raised concerns after a ban was lifted.
In a curious turn of events, the Supreme Court has decided to hear in person the district mining officer (DMO) of Bageshwar district in Uttarakhand after learning that her statement before the Uttarakhand High Court directly contradicted a report relied upon by the apex court to lift a blanket ban on soapstone mining in the district.
A bench of justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran on Wednesday directed Nazia Hassan, the Bageshwar DMO, to remain present before it on February 18, observing that it would “like to know the truth” behind her assertion before the high court that no mining lease had been given a “clean chit” by a committee whose report had, days earlier, persuaded the Supreme Court to allow 29 lease-holders to restart mining operations.
The order came while the bench was hearing an appeal filed by the Uttarakhand government against the high court’s December 5 and 11, 2025 orders, which had questioned the very foundation of the Supreme Court’s November decision lifting the absolute ban on mining. The top court has continued its earlier stay on the December orders of the high court.
During the hearing, the bench expressed disquiet over the development. “We would like to know the truth. We don’t know what is happening in the high court. We don’t know whether she was being pressurised one way or the other,” the court observed. “Twenty-nine lessees were said to be complying with the norms as per the report, but she later appeared before the high court and said something else,” it added.
Senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, appearing for the state, submitted that Hassan had herself signed the report along with other officers.
The bench, however, remained unconvinced. “We will rather call that lady and enquire from her. She is the one who said something contrary to the report,” it said. When Nadkarni pointed out that five other officers had also signed the report, the bench responded: “And you initiated disciplinary proceedings against her?”
Nadkarni informed the court that only a show-cause notice had been issued to Hassan, seeking an explanation as to why she took a stand before the high court that differed from a report she had signed. “We would like to know from her why she did what she did. Let her remain present before us to explain,” the bench directed.
Recording this, the court ordered: “Nazia Hassan, district mining officer, shall remain present before this court. List this matter next on February 18.”
The controversy traces back to the Supreme Court’s November 2025 order permitting 29 lease-holders in Bageshwar district to resume soapstone mining using machinery, setting aside a blanket ban imposed by the Uttarakhand high court earlier that year. The top court’s order had held that a blanket ban on soapstone mining was impermissible where lease-holders were operating with valid approvals, observing that such a ban would disrupt livelihoods and harm the state’s economy. It had allowed the 29 lease-holders to continue mining in accordance with law, noting that no irregularities had been found in their operations.
In January 2025, the high court imposed an immediate suspension of all mining activities in Bageshwar after a judicial report highlighted severe environmental and safety concerns, and stated that extensive mining had led to the formation of deep crevasses, raising the risk of landslides.
The apex court had relied on a report of a committee constituted by the district magistrate, which, according to the state’s short counter affidavit, found 29 leases to be operating in compliance with law and recommended cancellation of only seven leases.
However, while hearing the matter in December, the Uttarakhand high court recorded the presence of Hassan and noted her categorical submission that the committee had not granted a clean chit to any lease-holder.
In its December 5 order, the high court observed that the Supreme Court had relied on a document listing 29 leases under the heading “details of soapstone mining leases whose operations have been found to be in order and correct”. The high court noted that the document, relied upon by the state in its short counter affidavit before the apex court, did not disclose its author.
After extracting some paragraphs of the state’s short counter affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the high court remarked that it was “startling” that the affidavit had “canvassed a non-existent fact”. It recorded Hassan’s statement that the 29 lease-holders were merely those against whom no penalties had been imposed, and that the committee had never certified that their mining operations complied with the Act, Rules or lease conditions. The high court then summoned the additional secretary, industrial development (mining), Uttarakhand, observing that the apex court had placed reliance on the disputed affidavit while lifting the ban.
The matter escalated further on December 11, when the high court took serious exception to a show-cause notice issued by the additional secretary to Hassan for her statement in court. Recording the submission of the amicus curiae, Dushyant Mainali, the high court held that the notice prima facie amounted to “obstructing the course of justice”. “The show-cause notice is a clear act of intimidation, and a contemptuous one,” the court said, issuing notice to the additional secretary to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. It also directed both the officer and the DMO to remain present on all dates of hearing.
