Holding

Mining is prohibited within one kilometre of a protected‑area boundary and in any Eco‑Sensitive Zone, regardless of the distance from the protected area.

Summary

The Court was asked to clarify whether mining could be carried out beyond one kilometre from the boundary of a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary when the proposed site lies within an Eco‑Sensitive Zone (ESZ). The petitioner argued that his mining lease, granted in 2005, was situated 2.26 km from the Radhanagari Wildlife Sanctuary and therefore fell outside the one‑kilometre ban. The Court examined its earlier directions of 26 April 2023, which prohibited mining within one kilometre of protected‑area boundaries and reiterated that the 2011 Guidelines and ESZ notifications categorise commercial mining as a prohibited activity. It held that the ban extends to the full one‑kilometre radius even where the ESZ boundary is less than that distance, and that mining is prohibited anywhere within an ESZ irrespective of its distance from the protected area. Consequently, the application seeking permission for mining was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the prohibition on mining within one kilometre of a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary extends to areas where the ESZ boundary is less than one kilometre.
Whether mining is permissible in an ESZ that lies beyond one kilometre from the protected‑area boundary.
How the 2011 Guidelines and specific ESZ notifications interact with Supreme Court judgments prohibiting mining.

Legislation cited

Subjects

miningeco‑sensitive zoneprotected areanational parkwildlife sanctuaryenvironmental lawprohibitionSupreme Courtguidelines 2011ESZ notificationwildlife protection

Judgment

[2023] 6 S.C.R. 635 635

IN RE : T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(IA No. 3949 of 2016)
In B
(Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995)
APRIL 28, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Environmental Laws: Mining activities beyond the distance
C
of one kilometer from the boundary of the Protected Area,
irrespective of the fact that such an area falls under the Eco-Sensitive
Zone-ESZ – Permissibility of – Held: Some of the National Parks
and Wildlife Sanctuaries, the ESZ areas are less than one kilometer,
in some, it is as less as 500 meters or even less than 500 meters –
Thus, it is clarified that even in case where the ESZ boundaries are D
less than one kilometer from the Protected Area, the ban on mining
shall extend upto a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of
such areas – Since the mining activity in ESZ area is a prohibited
activity, even if in a particular case, the ESZ is more than one
kilometer, still, if the concerned area where mining is proposed falls
E
within the ESZ, the mining activity will not be permitted, even if it
falls in an area which is beyond one kilometer from the boundary
of the Protected Area.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India
(2010) 13 SCC 740; Goa Foundation v. Union of India
and Others (2014) 6 SCC 590 : [2014] 5 SCR 302 – F
referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2010) 13 SCC 740 referred to Para 18
[2014] 5 SCR 302 referred to Para 18 G
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : IA No.3949 of 2016. In
Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mohit Paul, Adv. for the Petitioner.
H
635
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A Balbir Singh, K.M. Nataraj, A.S.Gs., C. A. Sundaram, Dr. Manish
Singhvi, V.K. Shukla, Sr. Advs., Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Archana
Pathak Dave, Ms. Suhashini Sen, S. S. Rebello, Shyam Gopal, Raghav
Sharma, Sughosh Subramanyam, Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Gaichangpou
Gangmei, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shuvodeep Roy, Raj Kumar Mehta,
M/s. M. V. Kini & Associates, V. Balaji, N. Doraikannan, K. V.
B
Dhanpalan, Asaithambi Msm, C. Kannan, Nizamuddin, Rakesh K.
Sharma, Ms. S. Janani, M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co, Mrs. Nandini
Gore, E. C. Vidya Sagar, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Tejaswi
Kumar Pradhan, Mohan Prasad Gupta, Aniruddha Purushotham,
Manoranjan Paikaray, Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Surya Kant, P.
C Parmeswaran, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Rajeev
Singh, Prashant Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Vikrant Singh Bais,
Shiva Pujan Singh, Rajesh Singh, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Gunmaya S. Mann,
Kamal Mohan Gupta, Sudarsh Menon, Ramesh Babu M. R., M/s.
Corporate Law Group, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Himanshu Shekhar, Mrs.
Manik Karanjawala, M. C. Dhingra, Gaurav Dhingra, Arvind Kumar
D
Singh, Ms. Vijay Laxmi, Ejaz Maqbool, Rajesh, Ms. Abha R. Sharma,
Abhishek Chaudhary, S. R. Setia, Ms. Charu Mathur, A. Venayagam
Balan, C. L. Sahu, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Neeraj Shekhar, Ms. Asha
Gopalan Nair, E. M. S. Anam, Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Rajiv
Mehta, T. V. George, Krishnanand Pandeya, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri,
E Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Ms. Binu Tamta, B V Deepak, Vikas Kumar Singh,
Ms. Rajshree Singh, Dr. Sham Chand, Vikram Singh, T. N. Singh, Punit
Dutt Tyagi, Rathin Das, Irshad Ahmad, G. Prakash, Rauf Rahim, Mrs.
Rekha Pandey, Gopal Singh, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, A. N. Arora, Ms. C.
K. Sucharita, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mohd. Irshad
Hanif, Ms. Mala Diwedi, Ms. Rifat Ara Butt, P. V. Yogeswaran, Jitendra
F
Mohan Sharma, Ms. Malini Poduval, Jai Prakash Pandey, Ajit Pudussery,
Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, K. L. Janjani, Naresh K. Sharma, Ms. A.
Sumathi, Radha Shyam Jena, Ram Swarup Sharma, Mrs. Bina Gupta,
Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Divya Roy, Tarun Johri, S. C. Birla, P. R.
Ramasesh, Shibashish Misra, M/s. Parekh & Co., M/s. K J John and
G Co, V. Balachandran, Ms. Baby Krishnan, Ms. Bina Madhavan, K. V.
Vijayakumar, Umesh Bhagwat, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, H. S. Parihar,
Kuldip Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, Ashok Mathur, P. N. Gupta, Sarad
Kumar Singhania, E. C. Agrawala, S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Madhu
Moolchandani, T. Mahipal, Rajat Joseph, Gopal Prasad, Ms. Jyoti
Mendiratta, M. Yogesh Kanna, Naveen Kumar, James P. Thomas, Saket
H
IN RE : T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 637
INDIA & ORS.

Singh, Mrs. Sangeeta Singh, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Dhaval Mehrotra, A
B. K. Pal, Ms. Shalini Kaul, Sarvam Ritam Khare, Gaurav Agrawal,
Shubhranshu Padhi, Vishal Banshal, Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Niroop
Sukrithy, Jay Nirupam, Aravindh S., Ms. Uma Bhuvaneshwari. C, Abbas.
B, M/s. D.S.K. Legal, Ms. Purnima Krishna, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Mrinal
Gopal Elker, Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Milind Kumar, Shreyas Awasthi,
B
Devvrat Singh, Ms. Astha Sharma, Gopal Balwant Sathe, V. N.
Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Ms. Suhashini Sen, Naman Tandon,
Piyush Beriwal, Samarvir Singh, Navanjay Mahapatra, T.S. Sabarish,
Amrish Kumar, Ravindra S. Garia, Kaushik Choudhury, Sandeep Kumar
Jha, Ashok Basoya, Arpit Prakash, Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Vivek Jain,
Abhishek Atrey, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Vidyottma Jha, M. R. C
Shamshad, Ajay Marwah, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Bharat Bagla, Ms. Shreya Saxena, Ms. Yamini Singh, Sourav
Singh, Naveen Kumar, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi,
Sanjay Upadhyay, Anil Raina, Ms. Diksha Sarin, M/s. V. Maheshwari
& Co., M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Abhinav Mukerji, Akshay
D
Shrivastava, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Ms. Surbhi Mehta,
Ms. Adarsh Nain, Kumar Anurag Singh, Anando Mukherjee, Mrs. Tulika
Mukherjee Siddhartha Jha, A. Karthik, Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, M/s.
Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Vinod Sharma, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal,
Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Nishanth Patil, Chirag M. Shroff, Dr. Joseph Aristotle
S., Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Narendra Kumar, S. E
Gowthaman, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Somesh Chandra
Jha, Sunil Kumar Sharma, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Ms. Mrinal Elkar
Mazumdar, Mukesh Kr Verma, Neeraj Kr Sharma, Ms. Indira Bhakar,
(d) Harish Pandey, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, P. S. Sudheer, Sunny Choudhary,
Upendra Mishra, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar,
F
Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Dr. Monika Gusain, P. K. Manohar, Ms. Archana
Pathak Dave, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Shailesh Madiyal, Vaibhav
Sabharwal, Akshay Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
G
1. When we pronounced our judgment in I.A. No. 131377 of 2022
along with connected applications in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of
1995 on 26th April 2023, we did not anticipate that within a few days, we
would be called upon to clarify the position as to whether mining activities
would be permissible beyond the distance of one kilometer from the
H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A boundary of the Protected Area, irrespective of the fact that such an
area falls under the Eco-Sensitive Zone (in short “ESZ”) notified by the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (“MoEF” for short).
2. We are grateful to the applicant in the present application for
giving us this opportunity to clarify this position so that further
B environmental damage is avoided.
3. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that the applicant was
granted permission to execute a mining lease as early as in 2005, subject
to clearance from MoEF as well as the National Board for Wild Life.
4. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
C applicant, submits that the area where the applicant proposes to carry
out the activity is beyond 2.26 kilometer from the nearest boundary of
the Radhanagari Wildlife Sanctuary. It is, therefore, submitted that it
falls beyond a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the
Protected Area.
D 5. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel, therefore, relying on
our judgment dated 26th April 2023 passed in in I.A. No. 131377 of 2022
along with connected applications in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of
1995, the ink of which is yet to dry, submits that, since mining is proposed
to be carried out beyond a distance of one kilometer from the boundary
E of Protected Area, it would very much be permitted.
6. Learned senior counsel submits that this Court has clearly held
that mining within a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the
Protected Area is banned. He submits that, however, the judgment does
not prohibit mining activities even in ESZ, which is a buffer area, if it
F extends beyond a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the
Protected Area.
7. He, however, submits that this would be subject to permission
from the Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life (in short
“SCNBWL”), which admittedly, has granted permission.
G 8. Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
for the Union of India as well as Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned Amicus Curiae
have vehemently opposed this prayer and they submit that the contention
of the applicant is based on a misreading of the directions issued by this
Court.
H
IN RE : T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 639
INDIA & ORS. [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

9. We find that the directions issued in paragraph 65 of the judgment A
of this Court delivered on 26th April 2023 are very much clear. It reads
thus:
“65. We also modify the direction contained in paragraph 56.4 of
the order dated 3rd June, 2022 (Supra) and direct that mining within
the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of B
one kilometre from the boundary of such National Park and Wild
Life Sanctuary shall not be permissible.”
10. The perusal of the above para would reveal that the directions,
which were issued by this Court earlier for prohibiting mining activities
within a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of such National C
Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries only insofar as the State of Goa was
concerned, has been made applicable pan-India.
11. The aforesaid question arose since in case of some of the
National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, the ESZ areas are less than
one kilometer. In some, it is as less as 500 meters and in some others, it D
is even less than 500 meters.
12. We, therefore, clarified that even in case where the ESZ
boundaries are less than one kilometer from the Protected Area, the ban
on mining shall extend upto a distance of one kilometer from the boundary
of such areas. E
13. It will further be relevant to refer to paragraph 66.1 of our
judgment dated 26th April, 2023, which reads thus:
“66(i) The MoEF & CC and all the State/Union Territory
Governments shall strictly follow the provisions in the said
Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and so also the provisions F
contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining to the respective
Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated
activities and permissible activities;”
14. It could thus clearly be seen that we have directed that MoEF
as well as all the State Governments/Union Territories shall strictly follow G
the provisions in the Guidelines dated 9th February, 2011, as also the
provisions contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining to the respective
Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated activities
and permissible activities.
H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 15. As such, our directions are very much clear. Whatever is
prohibited under the 2011 guidelines and whatever is additionally prohibited
under the specific ESZ notifications of the particular Protected Areas
have to be strictly followed.
16. The perusal of paragraph 40 of the judgment dated 26th April
B 2023 would reveal that the very first activity, which is contained in
Annexure-I of the Guidelines, is commercial mining and the same is
prohibited.
17. Apart from that, it will also be relevant to refer to paragraph 4
of the Notification dated 15th October, 2020 vide which a final notification
C had been notified in so far as the ESZ for Radhanagari Sanctuary is
concerned, which reads thus:
“4. List of activities prohibited or to be regulated within Eco-
sensitive Zone.- All activities in the Eco-sensitive Zone shall be
governed by the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 and the rules made there under including the Coastal
D
Regulation Zone, 2011 and the Environmental Impact Assessment
Notification, 2006 and other applicable laws including the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980), the Indian Forest Act,
1927 (16 of 1927), the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 (53 of 1972),
and amendments made thereto and be regulated in the manner
E specified in the Table below, namely:-
S.No. Activity Description
(2) (3)
(1)
A. Prohibited Activities.
1. Commercial mining, (a) All new and existing mining (minor
stone quarrying and and major minerals), ston quarrying
F crushing units and crushing units shall be prohibited
with immediate effect except for
meeting the domestic needs of bona
fide local residents including digging
of earth for construction or repair of
houses withinEco SensitiveZone;

(b) The mining operations shall be carried
G our in accordance with the order of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated the
4th August, 2006 in the matter of
T.N. Godaverman Thirumulpad Vs.
UOI in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995 and
dated the 21st April, 2014 in the matter
ofGoa FoundationVs. UOI in W.P(C)
No. 435 of 2012.
H
IN RE : T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 641
INDIA & ORS. [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

18. It could thus clearly be seen that Clause A
(a) of the Notification of the MoEF also clearly mentions that all
the new and existing minor and major minerals, stone quarrying and
crushing units shall be prohibited with immediate effect, except for meeting
the domestic needs of bona fide local residents, including digging of earth
for construction or repair of houses within ESZ. B
19. No doubt that Clause (b) of the Notification of the MoEF
mentions that the mining operation shall be carried out in accordance
with the order of this Court dated 04th August 2006 in the matter of T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India reported in (2010)
13 SCC 740 and order dated 21st April 2014 in the case of Goa C
Foundation v. Union of India and Others reported in (2014) 6 SCC
590.
20. However, the last word on the issue is the judgment dated 26th
April 2023. The notification is dated 15th October 2020, i.e. prior to the
pronouncement of our judgment. D
21. As such, the provisions made in clause 1(b) of paragraph 4 of
the Notification dated 15th October 2020 would now become redundant
in view of our judgment and order dated 26th April 2023.
22. As such, any activity, which is prohibited by both the guidelines E
as well as the ESZ notification shall strictly be prohibited. Since the
mining activity in ESZ area is a prohibited activity, there is no question of
such an activity being permitted in an ESZ area even if it falls beyond
the distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the protected area.
23. We clarify that even if in a particular case, the ESZ is more F
than one kilometer, still, if the concerned area where mining is proposed
falls within the ESZ, the mining activity will not be permitted, even if it
falls in an area which is beyond one kilometer from the boundary of the
Protected Area.
24. The prohibition of one kilometer from the boundary of G
Protected Area is only with regard to the cases where the boundary of
ESZ is less than one kilometer from the boundary of the sanctuary. Only
in such cases, the ban on mining will travel beyond the ESZ area and
cover an area upto a distance of one kilometer.

H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 25. The aforesaid directions were issued in order to protect the
National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries so that the mines would not
become a death trap for the flora and fauna within them.
26. Apart from that, the judgment dated 26th April 2023 is delivered
by a Bench of three Judges of this Court, which is binding on us.
B
27. As such the application is rejected.

Nidhi Jain Application rejected.

C

D

E

F

G

H