ecological balance - The Legal Chamber

Explained: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Sand Mining and Environmental Clearance

26Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Explained: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Sand Mining and Environmental Clearance

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that a valid District Survey Report (DSR), prepared under the EIA Notification, 2016, is mandatory for granting environmental clearance for sand mining. The Supreme Court held that a DSR is legally untenable without a scientific replenishment study, as it forms the foundational basis for determining sustainable extraction limits and ensuring ecological balance. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the grant of an Environmental Clearance (EC) for sand mining in three blocks on the Shaliganga Nallah in Jammu & Kashmir. The project proponent, contracted by the National Highway Authority of India for a Srinagar ring road, applied for the EC. Initially, the J&K Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) rejected the proposal in January 2022, citing ...

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Environmental Laws: Prior Clearance Must for Projects, No Retrospective Approvals

The Supreme Court ruled that ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) violate environmental jurisprudence and are alien to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the EIA Notification, 2006. Stressing the precautionary principle and Article 21 (right to a pollution-free environment), the Court struck down the 2017 notification and 2021 OM permitting retrospective ECs, holding them arbitrary and illegal. It reiterated that prior EC is mandatory, and no regularization of violations is permissible, aligning with its earlier judgments in Common Cause and Alembic Pharmaceuticals. The Court barred future exemptions but spared already granted ECs. Facts Of The Case: The case involved multiple writ petitions and a civil appeal challenging the legality of the 2017 notification and 2021 ...

“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”

The Supreme Court ruled that the allotment of 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune for non-forest purposes violated Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the public trust doctrine. It quashed the illegal allotment to private builders, ordered restoration of the land to the Forest Department, and mandated a nationwide audit of similarly diverted forest lands. The judgment reaffirmed the state's fiduciary duty to protect forest resources and prohibited their conversion for commercial use without Central approval. Violations were held irreparable even under the doctrine of desuetude. Facts Of The Case: The case involved 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune's Kondhwa Budruk village, originally notified under the Indian Forest Act, 1878. In 1968, the land wa...