India: Supreme Court Imposes Nationwide Ban on Mining Within 1 km of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries

Landmark Ruling: Extending Goa’s Mining Ban to Pan-India Protection

NEW DELHI (India CSR): In a landmark decision aimed at bolstering wildlife conservation across India, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that no mining activities shall be permitted within national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, or within a one-kilometer radius of their boundaries. The order, delivered by a two-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, extends a previous restriction imposed on the state of Goa to a pan-India mandate, citing the hazardous impact of extraction operations on wildlife habitats.

The ruling came in the case In Re: Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary (2025 INSC 1311), which primarily addressed long-pending proposals to notify ecologically sensitive forest areas in Jharkhand’s West Singhbhum district as protected zones. The bench expressed strong disapproval of the Jharkhand government’s inconsistent approaches to these notifications, describing it as a “topsy-turvy” stance that gave the impression of “taking the court for a ride.” Despite this, the court prioritized environmental protection, directing the state to finalize the declaration of the Saranda region as a wildlife sanctuary while safeguarding the rights of local tribal and forest-dwelling communities.

Background of the Case

The Saranda forest division, spanning approximately 31,468.25 hectares (about 314 square kilometers), was originally declared the “Saranda Game Sanctuary” in 1968 under the Bihar Forest, Hunting, Shooting and Fishing Rules, 1958, when Jharkhand was part of unified Bihar. Following the state’s bifurcation in 2000, the area fell under Jharkhand’s jurisdiction, but no mining excavations or forest land diversions for mining occurred in this core zone—except for a minor 4.31-hectare portion.

Saranda is renowned as one of the world’s most pristine Sal forests and a critical biodiversity hotspot, interconnected with forests in neighboring Odisha and Chhattisgarh to form a vital wildlife corridor. It harbors endangered species such as the Sal Forest Tortoise, four-horned antelope, Asian palm civet, wild elephants, leopards, sambar and chital deer, bison, barking deer, and a diverse array of birds and reptiles. Reports from the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) underscored the urgent need for statutory protection under Section 26A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA), to prevent habitat fragmentation and ecological degradation.

The case gained momentum after the Supreme Court, in prior hearings, directed the Jharkhand government to evaluate declaring Saranda a reserve forest. However, the state’s proposals fluctuated dramatically: from an initial 31,468.25 hectares to 57,519.41 hectares, then down to 24,941.64 hectares, amid applications from entities like the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) seeking permissions for ancillary mining-related activities. The bench reserved judgment on October 27, 2025, before issuing the order on November 13.

This nationwide extension builds on the court’s April 2023 decision in the Goa Foundation case, which had limited mining near protected areas in Goa alone. The judges emphasized that such localized measures were insufficient given the uniform threats posed by mining to wildlife across the country.

Key Directives from the Bench

The Supreme Court’s order includes several binding instructions to balance conservation with sustainable development:

• Mining Ban: All mining operations—existing, ongoing, or proposed—within national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, or a one-kilometer buffer zone around them are prohibited. This applies pan-India and aligns with the WPA’s environmental safeguards. Operations in ecologically sensitive areas must cease or undergo rigorous environmental clearances.
• Saranda Notification: Jharkhand must notify an area covering 120 compartments (originally 126 from the 1968 notification, excluding six compartments—KP-2, KP-10, KP-11, KP-12, KP-13, and KP-14—designated as mining zones under the Mining Plan for Saranda Mines) as a wildlife sanctuary within three months. These exclusions adhere to sustainable development principles, allowing limited mining in those specific zones.
• Tribal and Forest Dweller Rights: The rights of tribals and forest dwellers remain fully protected under Section 3 read with Section 4(1) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA). This includes individual rights to habitat, habitation, leases, in-situ rehabilitation, and community rights. The state is mandated to widely publicize this assurance to dispel fears of displacement. Public infrastructure like schools, health centers, roads, and rail links will continue uninterrupted, as they are permissible under the FRA.
• Ancillary Activities: Non-extractive operations, such as those sought by SAIL, are allowed post-notification, provided they comply with FRA provisions. The district collector, in consultation with the chief wildlife warden, can permit continuations of existing rights within sanctuary limits.

The bench clarified that the WPA’s Section 24(2)(c) and FRA provisions ensure no adverse impact on local communities, countering the state’s concerns about potential demolitions or loss of livelihoods. “The bogey that on declaration of wildlife sanctuary, the habitations and rights of the tribals and traditional forest dwellers will be lost… is only a figment of imagination of the State,” the judges noted.

Judicial Rationale and Quotes

The decision underscores India’s constitutional commitments under Articles 48A (Directive to protect the environment) and 51A(g) (Fundamental duty to protect wildlife), alongside decades of environmental jurisprudence. The court highlighted the state’s “positive obligation” to conserve ecologically significant areas.

Key excerpts from the judgment include:

• On the mining hazard: “It has been the consistent view of this court that mining activities within one km of the protected area will be hazardous to the wildlife. Though in the case of Goa Foundation, the said directions were issued with respect to the State of Goa, we find that such directions need to be issued on a pan-India basis.”
• On the ban’s scope: “We direct that mining within national parks and wildlife sanctuaries and within an area of one km from boundary of such national park or wildlife sanctuary shall not be permissible.”
• On tribal protections: “We further direct the state of Jharkhand to give wide publicity to the fact that by this judgment, neither the individual rights nor the community rights of the tribals and the forest dwellers in the said area would be adversely affected.”

The ruling also critiqued the Jharkhand government’s vacillations, noting admissions that no major mining had occurred in the core sanctuary area, yet repeated attempts to shrink the protected zone.

Implications for Environment, Industry, and Communities

Environmental Gains: The ban fortifies inviolate zones, curbing habitat loss and pollution in biodiversity-rich areas like Saranda, which holds 26% of India’s iron ore reserves but faces intense mining pressure. By establishing buffer zones, the order prevents wildlife corridors from being severed, aiding species recovery and ecosystem stability.

Mining Sector Challenges: The decision could disrupt operations in mineral-rich regions near protected areas, affecting steel production targets under the National Steel Policy, 2017, and local employment. Entities like SAIL may need to relocate or scale back, though ancillary works provide some leeway. The exclusion of six Saranda compartments offers a compromise for sustainable extraction.

Social Safeguards: For over 100 tribal villages in Saranda, the FRA’s reaffirmation ensures continued access to forests for livelihoods, education, and healthcare. The court urged the state to educate communities on their rights rather than perpetuate misinformation.

This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role as an environmental guardian, striking a delicate balance between development and preservation. Environmentalists hailed it as a “vital step” for India’s wildlife, while industry observers called for clearer implementation guidelines to minimize economic fallout. The Jharkhand government has been given three months to comply, with the Supreme Court retaining jurisdiction for further monitoring.

Also Read: What Is The Taskforce On Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD)?

(India CSR)