Sand Mining Projects Require Replenishment Study In District Survey Report For Clearance: Supreme Court

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India in Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.[1] has granted sand mining projects’ environmental clearances without considering the necessary replenishment studies. The Court inquired whether reliance could be placed on District Survey Reports void of replenishment data for the granting of environmental clearances as per the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the EIA Notification, 2006 as amended.

Facts

The proponent intended to apply for sand and gravel mining in three blocks of Shaliganga Nallah in Budgam District. In January 2022, the Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory Expert Appraisal Committee rejected the proposals stating the area had been overexploited and the District Survey Report had no sufficient data for replenishment. In February 2022, the Department of Geology and Mining issued a fit-for-mining certificate. Relying on this, the project proponent submitted a new application and the Expert Appraisal Committee in March 2022 recommended the projects even when admitting the DSR was incomplete. In April 2022, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority issued the environmental clearances with a number of conditions including a maximum mining depth of one metre. These clearances were challenged before the National Green Tribunal and were deemed invalid because there were no studies on how the area would be replenished. J&K, NHAI and the project proponent jointly appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the so-called ‘curable’ deficiencies were cured by the conditional restrictions imposed by the SEIAA.

Issue

The central issue before the Court was whether environmental clearances for sand mining projects can be sustained when based on District Survey Reports that lack replenishment studies. A related issue was whether the project proponent violated clearance conditions by using heavy machinery instead of manual or semi-mechanised methods.

Arguments

The appellants maintained that the requisite environmental clearances were lawfully issued by competent authorities. They argued that the mining shallower than one-metre depth plus the capped production quantities addressed the lack of replenishment data sufficiently. They also argued that the formal ‘approvals’ of the public infrastructure works were within the bounds of the afforded flexibility within the law. The respondents claimed that the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines of 2016 and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining of 2020 make replenishment studies obligatory. They argued that the DSRs were flawed and could not form the basis for clearance due to a lack of data on replenishment. They also argued that the Expert Appraisal Committee and the SEIAA had both recognized the lack of data but had still issued the clearances. Further, they claimed that the project proponent had breached the clearance conditions by using heavy machinery, which was explicitly prohibited.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the NGT which the appeals were filed against. It ruled that a District Survey Report which lacks replenishment studies is both incomplete and legally untenable. The Court’s ruling stated that the replenishment data is a critically essential precondition for the environmental clearance and could not be substituted by limiting the depth of mining. Just as for forest preservation an appraisal of the growth of trees is necessary prior to timber harvesting, the Court noted that replenishment studies assist regulators in determining the extent to which sand mining is permitted without disrupting the natural equilibrium of the river. The Court held the mistake of the J&K EAC in proceeding DSR in the absence of data on replenishment and the SEIAA eroded regulatory credibility by providing clearance in these circumstances. On breaches of the clearance conditions, the Court sided with the NGT that the project proponent contravened the specified terms of using heavy machinery. He was given the right to respond which was the basis of the hearing before action was taken by the J&K Pollution Control Board.

Analysis

The ruling refined the legal understanding that environmental clearance for sand mining operations is not possible without conducting replenishment studies. The Court regarded replenishment data as integral to the District Survey Reports. In doing so, the Court removed the space for arbitrary compromises granted by conditional clearance granting bodies. The Court explained that replenishment studies are mandatory to evaluate the natural recovery potential of rivers. In the absence of such studies, mining operations will inevitably damage riverbeds, banks, and biodiversity. The Court highlighted that the construction-grade sand is now in greater demand, and scientific studies suggest that this resource is likely to be depleted by the middle of this century. Sand is predominantly found in water bodies like rivers, which provide it as an ecosystem service. Its uncontrolled removal leads to the deepening and widening of riverbeds, loss of biodiversity, and ecological disruption in floodplains. The Court connected this ecological fact with the law, stating that the Environment (Protection) Act and EIA Notifications are clear and require scientific determination as the basis for granting environmental clearance.

The judgment drew an analogy with forest conservation, stating that just as timber harvesting requires assessment of growth rates to ensure sustainability, sand mining requires replenishment studies to maintain ecological balance. It reiterated that a DSR is valid only when it includes replenishment data. The Court rejected the argument that mining restrictions could compensate for the absence of replenishment studies, holding that such conditions are inadequate substitutes for scientific evaluation.

The decision also highlighted the failure of regulatory authorities. The J&K Expert Appraisal Committee and the SEIAA recorded that the DSR was incomplete yet continued with recommendations and approvals. The Court described this as compromising regulatory integrity and identified it as regulatory failure. The attempt to allow mining with restrictions, despite absence of replenishment data, was held to be unlawful. The Court thus reinforced accountability of regulatory institutions by affirming that they must adhere strictly to statutory and scientific requirements.

The decision also placed emphasis on post-clearance compliance. Compliance with oversight conditions, especially concerning prohibitions on heavy machinery, is critical for enforcing environmental safeguards during operations. In this case, the Court draws continuity from Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana and State of UP v. Gaurav Kumar, where it was reasoned that all forms of mining, including those with small lease areas, require environmental clearance based on a scientific assessment. This case extends that rationale by holding that the validity of DSRs and, by extension, environmental clearances, is dependent on replenishment studies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled that unsurveyed District Survey Reports are incomplete without replenishment studies and hence cannot be used to grant environmental clearances. The absence of such conditional data renders conditional restrictions moot. The Court agreed with the NGT’s decision to cancel the clearances in Jammu and Kashmir and mandated compliance with the stipulated conditions of the clearances. This judgment reinforces the governance of sustainable sand-mining and emphasizes the need for scientific evaluation as the foundation of environmental governance.

[1] Civil Appeal No. 8055 of 2022.