Why Andhra Pradesh High Court wants ‘resources to be preserved for future generations’ in India

While protecting the environment, the need for sustainable development has also to be taken into consideration, said the Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam . (Image enhanced using AI)

Findings

• To protect future generations, it is imperative that pollution laws be strictly enforced.
• Under no circumstances, can industries which pollute be allowed to operate unchecked and degrade the environment.
• Environmental clearance is granted on condition of the suitability of the site to set up the project from the environmental angle, and existence of necessary infrastructural facilities and equipment for compliance of environmental norms.
• One principle cannot be applied in isolation of the other.
• It is necessary that, while protecting the environment, the need for sustainable development has also to be taken into consideration.
• A proper balance between the two has to be struck.
• The NGT has for the well assigned reasons, on justifiable grounds, rightly interfered with the grant of the EC.
• No interference is called with the order of the tribunal, in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
• The NGT has also the suo moto power.
• Its role is not simply adjudicatory in the nature of a lis (an issue), but it has also to perform the vital roles which are preventive and remedial in nature to save the environment from degradation.
• The tribunal rightly took the cognisance of various aspects in discharge of its statutory function.
• Tribunal’s power and jurisdiction while deciding a lis cannot be confined only to the grounds raised in the appeal before it.
• NGT acted to ensure that there is no environmental degradation and the grant or the procedure for grant of EC must be in consonance with the prescribed procedure and following the laws.
• No jurisdictional error by the NGT so as to call for court’s interference.
• Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 are applicable to the sand mining from the river as also from the other sources.
• It is not confined only to the mining of sand from the river only.

Background

• The case originates from the NGT’s order dated November 15, 2021 through which it had suspended the environmental clearance (EC) granted on April 16, 2020 by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to the silica sand mining project in Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh.
• The mining lease, originally granted in 1975 and later transferred to M/s Sri Kumaraswamy Silica Mines, the petitioner firm, covered hundreds of acres and had undergone renewals over decades.
• The petitioner contended that it had been operating lawfully and that the EC was granted after due appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC).
• The NGT, however, found serious procedural and environmental lapses and directed the ministry to re-examine the project.
• Following this, the company approached the high court.

Arguments

• Senior advocate P Veera Reddy, appearing for the petitioner argued that the NGT had exceeded its jurisdiction.
• He said that the project related to silica sand mining, which, according to the petitioner, was distinct from river sand mining and therefore not governed by certain sand mining guidelines.
• The senior counsel submitted that the NGT violated principles of natural justice by relying on grounds and considerations that were never put to the petitioner for response.
• He urged the high court to quash the NGT order and restore the EC.
• Opposing the writ petition, advocate G Sai Narayana Rao, appearing for the ministry submitted that the NGT had rightly exercised its jurisdiction.
• The counsel said that the tribunal acted after finding that critical aspects such as district-level surveys, assessment of ecological damage, compensation for illegal mining, and impacts on fragile dune ecosystems had not been properly evaluated by the authorities.

How Supreme Court kept vigil

Even as the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Aravallis drew heavy criticism, there exists a track record of the court’s firm stance against environmental neglect.

The apex court has frequently demonstrated a proactive vigilance regarding environmental conservation. Beyond mere oversight, the apex court has intervened decisively to safeguard India’s vast biodiversity—a delicate ecosystem home to over 91,000 animal species and 45,000 plant species. This judicial protection extends from endangered wildlife to the nation’s critical coastal and marine hotspots. Here are a few examples.

No mining within a km of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries

On November 13, the Supreme Court banned all mining activities within one kilometre of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries across the country.

Uttarakhand: Save tigers

The Supreme Court in November held that no safari will be permitted in core or critical tiger habitats. Setting new ecological safeguards, the bench, comprising former CJI Gavai and Justices A G Masih and A S Chandurkar ruled that tiger safaris can only be established on non-forest or degraded forest land located within buffer areas.

Jharkhand: Asia’s largest Sal forests

On October 8, the Supreme Court ordered the Jharkhand government to declare the Saranda forest a wildlife sanctuary in West Singhbhum district. These forests are also known as the ‘Land of Seven Hundred Hills’ for its hilly terrain and Asia’s largest Sal forests spanning 314 square kilometres.