Supreme Court Says Proposed Mining Ban In Jharkhand's Saranda Forest Will Apply To SAIL's Mines Too

The Supreme Court today verbally asserted that it would not allow any mining activities within the Saranda/Sasangdaburu forests proposed to be declared as a wildlife sanctuary in the State of Jharkhand. 

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran considered the issue of repeated non-compliance by the State of Jharkhand with its previous assurances given to declare the Saranda/Sasangdaburu forests as a wildlife sanctuary and conservation reserve.

On the last hearing, Sr Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state of Jharkhand, informed the bench that a draft notification was prepared for declaring the region as a wildlife sanctuary. However, he flagged that within the region, approximately 6 acres were occupied by villagers. He urged the Court to allow the notification to exempt the area occupied by the villagers.

Sr Adv K Parameshwar, appearing as the amicus in the matter, had flagged concerns over non-disclosure by the State Government regarding the mining compartments within the exempted area. He pushed for the CEC to do an assessment of the entire zone and only then allow the notification to crystallise. 

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) and submitted that while certain mines are allotted to SAIL, they have not been made operational yet. He urged the Court to exempt those mines which are non-operational in the region.

The CJI, however, interjected to state "no, no, we will not permit anything, no mining activities within those 126 compartments"

The SG stressed that SAIL had mining leases for 30-year period, to which the CJI said that " You may have anything, the law cannot be different for the Union of India and for other mining agents" 

Today, during the hearing, Parameshwar referred to the counter affidavit filed by the State, which mentions the existence of 126 mining compartments within the forest. The counter clarified that no ancillary mining activities were happening. 

He stressed that 5-6 compartments of mining are falling within the forest area, and once declared a reserved forest zone, no mining activities can be allowed within it. He also added that the only motive of the state was to protect the interests of miners in the region. 

Another counsel appearing for one of the intervenors highlighted that due to mining activities around the forests, the Koena River near the forest and its tributaries get filled with toxic orange water coming from the mining compartments. 

Sibal reverted that the amicus was relying on mining notifications issued in 1968, while, factually, circumstances had changed in 2025. He stressed that only SAIL (Steel Authority of India Limited) was located within a 1 km radius of the proposed reserved forest, which had to be considered. 

He further clarified that as of the date, no mining activities were happening in the region of 24,000 sqms of the proposed reserved forest, and neither does the State Government have an issue with the CEC independently inspecting the region 

The court also heard the brief submissions made by counsel for scheduled tribes dwelling in the forest. 

Previously, the Court observed that if compliance with previous orders on the issue is not done before the next date of hearing, the Chief Secretary of the State will have to show cause why no contempt should be initiated against him.

The bench will now hear the matter in the coming week. 

Case Details : In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 202/1995