Hasdeo Forest | 'Where Exactly Are Trees Being Planted?' Supreme Court Questions Coal Block Allottees And Chhattisgarh Govt

During the hearing of pleas challenging coal mining in the Hasdeo Aranya forest area, the Supreme Court today questioned the coal block allottees and the state government about where trees are being planted as part of compensatory measures.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with 2 public interest litigations - one, filed by Sudiep Shrivastava (Chhattisgarh-based advocate and activist), seeking a direction to the Union of India to cancel all non-forest use and mining permissions granted for PEKB (Parsa East and Kente Basan) and Parsa Coal Block, Chhattisgarh, and second, filed by Dinesh Kumar Soni, which raises similar issues and relates to the Coalgate case, where a three Judge bench headed by Chief Justice RM Lodha declared coal allocation between 1993-2009 illegal.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Soni, recapitulated that the matter pertains to deforestation in the Hasdeo Aranya forest, which has been declared as an inviolate and no-go zone by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). "All the mining leases which have been given in this case are in the no-go and inviolate area, despite the fact that only 10% of the coal mineral deposits are in the inviolate and no-go area. Yet, they have given permission to mine. With the result that today rampant tree-cutting has been going on...", he submitted.

Based on the Coalgate case, the counsel highlighted that when the same coal blocks were given to the same agency, Supreme Court cancelled the allocation, saying that they had been virtually leased out to a private entity - that is, Adani Group. "Now the same thing was again allotted after cancellation by the Supreme Court, again it has been leased out to Adani!", he asserted, while arguing that the allotment is violative of Supreme Court's judgment in the Coalgate case.

Bhushan's contention about mining lease being given for a 'no-go' area was contested by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for respondents). When the bench asked about the estimate number of trees cut/likely to be cut, Rohatgi replied that there's permission to fell trees in a phased manner: "if you get permission to fell 100, you have to plant 1000...because coal is required...balance is maintained by this permission. We have all requisite permissions", the senior counsel said.

In response, Justice Kant questioned, "but who does that exercise that if 100 trees are cut, 1000 are planted? Where are those 1000? Which area those are planted? Who has planted? Is their any government agency involved in plantation or monitoring?"

On this, Rohtagi said that while plantation is to be done by the respondents(s), monitoring is to be done by the government. "The Forest Department of Chhattisgarh is obliged to see..." he submitted.

Hearing him, Justice Kant remarked that "it's very easy to say" that 1000 trees will be planted to compensate for 100 trees, but the question is in which area those trees are planted - the very district of Chhattisgarh where trees are being cut, or some other state.

Petitioner-Sudiep Shrivastava appeared in person and contended that the respondent(s) are opening the 2nd and 3rd coal block in violation of WII (Wildlife Institute of India) report. Further, he informed the Court that out of the total coal deposits in the country, only 10% lie in dense forests. Citing an MoEFCC report, Shrivastava said that all coal demand (present and future) can be fulfilled without touching the coal deposits in the dense forests.

Relying on WII's report, it was further contended that regardless of any mitigation efforts (like afforestation), irreparable damage would be caused to the Hasdeo Forest area by the mining operations.

Shrivastava also claimed that the first coal block alone has 3.68 lakh trees and the second block 96000. Going by reports, total number in both blocks is more than 1 million, he added. It was also argued that the respondents' need can be sufficiently met by the first block, yet they are venturing into the second and the third block (which have 98% dense forest).

"Why do they need to get into the dense forest? that is the issue" Bhushan emphasized in this regard. Pressing the WII report into service, the counsel further urged that the WII gave a scathing report, saying that mining should not be allowed in the area.

Pursuant to a Court query, Shrivastava said that the area in question is ground for human-elephant conflicts. Citing the WII report, he added that 15% of casualties in India due to human-elephant conflicts occurred in Chhattisgarh.

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Parsakente Collieries Ltd. and submitted that the entity was selected as the MDO (Mine Developer and Operator) to carry out the works for a fee and had "no role in all this".

When the bench asked if the state of Chhattisgarh has any role in the matter, Bhushan informed that the entire State Assembly passed a resolution against the coal mining.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, on the other hand, submitted that the state is taking steps for afforestation. To her, Justice Kant posed the query - do you have an aerial view of the forest area? What is cut and the manner in which trees have been cut in the first phase? If there is alternate plantation, where is that, and what is the current status?

Ultimately, the matter was adjourned to enable the parties to file convenience compilations and replies. After urgency was shown by Bhushan, saying that tree-felling will likely resume once monsoon season is over, the bench listed the matter on August 19.

Appearance: Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioners); petitioner-Sudiep Shrivastava; Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Dr AM Singhvi and Atmaram Nadkarni (for private respondents); ASG Aishwarya Bhati (for Union)

Case Title:

(1) DINESH KUMAR SONI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 371/2019

(2) SUDIEP SHRIVASTAVA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 510/2023