SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, December 23: By the time the Jharkhand High Court heard arguments in M/s Nishant Roadlines v. Union of India, the Saranda Forest no longer needed explanation—only reckoning. Once described as Asia’s largest continuous sal forest, Saranda had, over the decades, been reshaped as much by extraction as by ecology. Iron ore and manganese mining, conducted through a mix of state-sanctioned leases and rampant illegality, had left deep imprints across West Singhbhum, altering hills, waterways, and wildlife corridors alike.
Roads cut through elephant habitats that had existed long before modern boundaries were drawn. Forest streams, once central to the everyday lives of tribal villages, ran shallow and silted, carrying the residue of overburden and blasting. Entire stretches of canopy bore the unmistakable scars of industrial activity.
The Justice M.B. Shah Commission, appointed to inquire into illegal mining in Jharkhand, documented not only violations of lease conditions and forest laws, but also a more troubling pattern—a regulatory failure that allowed ecological damage to accumulate quietly, year after year.
It was against this backdrop, of a forest already pushed close to ecological saturation, that a four-acre stone mining proposal reached the Jharkhand High Court.
On paper, the proposal appeared modest. The land was described as revenue land, not forest land. The mineral was stone, not iron ore. The documentation was complete, the procedures apparently followed. Seen in isolation, the case might have seemed routine.
The Court refused to see it in isolation.
A Small Lease, a Larger Question
The mining contractor had obtained a Letter of Intent from the State Government for stone mining in Gundijora village. When the proposal was placed before the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for environmental clearance—as mandated under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006—it was rejected. The SEIAA relied on the Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM), which classified the area as a conservation or no-mining zone.
The challenge mounted before the High Court was narrow, almost technical. The MPSM, the contractor, had been prepared in the specific context of iron ore and manganese mining following the Shah Commission report. Stone mining, it was contended, lay outside its scope. Gundijora, the argument continued, was not notified forest land, and the MPSM itself lacked statutory force.
What followed was not merely a dispute over the interpretation of a policy document. It became a judicial inquiry into how environmental law must operate in landscapes already burdened by cumulative harm—an inquiry that would test the preventive purpose of environmental regulation itself.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand HC@25: Tribal custom, Constitutional courts, and promise of family justice
The Bench and the Constitutional Frame
The Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai, speaking through a judgment authored by Justice Prasad, placed the dispute squarely within the constitutional architecture of environmental protection in India. The judgment repeatedly returned to Article 21 of the Constitution, reaffirming settled Supreme Court jurisprudence that the right to life includes the right to live in a clean and healthy environment.
Environmental clearance, the Court emphasised, is not a procedural ritual performed after decisions have already been taken. It is a substantive safeguard, intended to prevent irreversible harm before it occurs. In this sense, the Saranda Forest mining case became a clear illustration of how constitutional environmental rights operate through statutory mechanisms.
At the centre of the Court’s reasoning lay the public trust doctrine. Forests, rivers, wildlife, and natural resources, the judgment reiterated, are not owned by the State in the manner of private property. They are held in trust for the public, present and future generations alike. Any decision permitting exploitation must therefore be tested not only for technical legality, but for fidelity to that trust.
In the context of Saranda, the Court found that permitting additional mining—even of stone—would amount to a breach of that constitutional trust.
Why Stone Mining Was Not Treated as Harmless
One of the judgment’s most consequential contributions lies in its rejection of a mineral-specific approach to environmental harm. The Court categorically held that the MPSM was never intended to regulate only iron ore or manganese mining. Its purpose was broader: to protect an ecologically sensitive region that had already suffered extensive degradation.
Stone mining, the Court observed, is not environmentally neutral. It involves blasting, the construction of approach roads, the movement of heavy vehicles, the alteration of landforms, and increased human activity. In a landscape that forms part of a notified elephant reserve, interspersed with rivers, natural streams, and forest corridors, even activities on non-forest land can fracture the ecological whole.
Environmental protection, the Court made clear, cannot depend on whether destruction arrives in the form of iron ore, manganese, or stone. The Saranda Forest environmental judgment thus rejected the idea that scale or mineral type could dilute ecological consequences.
Saranda Before the Court: Context That Mattered
The judgment devoted careful attention to Saranda’s legal and environmental history. The Management Plan for Sustainable Mining, prepared in 2018, was the outcome of the Shah Commission’s findings and a scientific study conducted by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE). Based on this study, the Saranda–Chaibasa region was divided into Mining Zones and Conservation or No-Mining Zones.
Gundijora village was expressly placed in the conservation category.
The Court noted that Saranda is not merely a forested tract on a map, but part of a complex ecological system comprising elephant habitats, river catchments, and biodiversity-rich zones. These facts were not disputed by the petitioner. In this context, the Court concluded that permitting mining in a designated conservation zone would directly undermine the very purpose for which the MPSM was prepared.
Deference to Expertise, Not Abdication
A substantial portion of the judgment clarified the role of courts in reviewing decisions taken by environmental regulators. SEIAA, constituted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, is an expert body entrusted with assessing environmental impact and granting or refusing environmental clearance.
Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the High Court reiterated that judicial review of such decisions is necessarily limited. Courts may interfere only in cases of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. In the present case, none were found. The SEIAA had examined the proposal, applied the MPSM, and unanimously rejected clearance.
The High Court viewed this not as arbitrariness, but as regulatory responsibility. Crucially, it emphasised that Letters of Intent, state consent, or mining plans cannot override the absence of environmental clearance. Environmental clearance, the Court underscored, is a precondition—not a post-hoc endorsement.
Rejecting the Logic of Parity
The mining contractor argued that mining was ongoing in other parts of Saranda, and that denial of clearance amounted to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court rejected this argument unequivocally.
Article 14, the judgment held, does not recognise negative equality. If illegal or environmentally harmful activities exist elsewhere, the remedy lies in enforcement—not in extending the same harm to new projects. Environmental violations, the Court warned, cannot be normalised through repetition. This reasoning aligns closely with broader Supreme Court environmental jurisprudence, rejecting parity as a defence to illegality.
The Broader Legal Architecture
Justice Prasad’s judgment situated the dispute within the wider framework of Indian environmental law. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—enacted under Article 253 of the Constitution—was described as a comprehensive statute aimed at preventing environmental degradation. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act empowers the Central Government to completely prohibit industries or operations in specified areas.
The Court further noted that environmental considerations under the National Forest Policy, 1988, must inform decisions even under mining statutes such as the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. Tracing Supreme Court decisions from T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad to Deepak Kumar and Common Cause, the judgment reaffirmed that mining must remain subordinate to constitutional values and environmental sustainability.
Of particular importance was the Court’s reliance on Supreme Court rulings declaring ex post facto environmental clearances illegal—an affirmation that environmental compliance cannot follow damage already done.
Saranda’s Reality Beneath the Record
Though judicial in tone, the reasoning reflects an unmistakable awareness of Saranda’s lived reality. The Court acknowledged that decades of mining had already caused ecological imbalance and that the MPSM itself warned against granting fresh leases.
The denial of stone mining was thus not an isolated administrative decision. It was a recognition that Saranda had reached a threshold where further extraction—however small—would risk irreversible damage.
The Supreme Court’s Final Word
Barely two months after the Jharkhand High Court delivered its judgment, the Supreme Court declared Saranda a Wildlife Sanctuary, bringing mining activities in the region to a complete halt. The Supreme Court’s reasoning echoed many of the principles emphasised by the High Court: protection of biodiversity, preservation of wildlife corridors, and the State’s obligation under the public trust doctrine.
In retrospect, the Jharkhand High Court’s decision stands as a critical legal moment—one that preserved the ecological and legal status quo long enough for permanent protection to be imposed by the apex court.
A Judgment That Reflects Institutional Maturity
As the Jharkhand High Court marks 25 years of its existence, this judgment stands out not for rhetorical flourish, but for restraint and clarity. It demonstrates how environmental law functions best—not through dramatic intervention, but through faithful application of statutory purpose.
The Court did not claim to save Saranda alone. It did something more judicially sound: it applied the law as it was meant to be applied, ensuring that the forest survived long enough for final protection.
Saranda’s story is not only one of loss. It is also a record of how courts, when attentive to facts, science, and precedent, can still alter the direction of environmental history.
