Introduction

The case of Mukesh Sharma v. Rajasthan was adjudicated by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on November 15, 2021. The petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Sharma, sought remedial action against illegal mining activities within the 10-kilometer periphery of the Sariska Tiger Reserve (STR) in Baldevgarh Village, Alwar District, Rajasthan. The key issues revolved around the violation of environmental norms through unauthorized mining, improper disposal of mining overburden on government land, and the illegal exploitation of natural water resources.

The respondents included the State of Rajasthan and various authorities such as the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB). The hearing was conducted before a special bench of the NGT, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel as Chairperson, alongside other judicial and expert members.

Summary of the Judgment

The NGT examined ongoing illegal mining operations within the eco-sensitive zone of the Sariska Tiger Reserve, highlighting that despite previous orders and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), mining activities continued unabated. The Tribunal reviewed reports indicating that five out of eight mines were operating illegally at varying distances (10 to 150 meters) from the STR boundary.

Referencing earlier orders, including Appeal No. 48/2016 and compliance guidelines from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the NGT reiterated the prohibition of mining within a 10-kilometer buffer zone around the reserve. The Tribunal directed strict cessation of prohibited activities, enforcement of environmental compensation under the "Polluter Pays" principle, and the implementation of stringent measures against vehicles used in illegal mining operations.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ordered the closure of illegally operating mines, emphasized adherence to MoEF&CC guidelines, and mandated the State Pollution Control Board to recover compensation for environmental damages.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively cited multiple precedents and earlier orders:

• Appeal No. 48/2016 (Nityendra Manav v. State of Rajasthan): Established the prohibition of mining within a 10 km buffer zone of the STR pending Eco-sensitive Zone (ESZ) notification.
• Supreme Court in Goa Foundation v. Union Of India (W.P. (C) No. 435 of 2012): Directed MoEF&CC to declare ESZs around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, reinforcing the prohibition of mining within these zones.
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995): Mandated ESZ declarations around protected areas to minimize ecological impact.
• Various orders and guidelines issued by MoEF&CC regarding ESZs and prohibited activities within these zones.

These precedents collectively strengthened the Tribunal’s stance against illegal mining by providing a robust legal framework supporting environmental protection measures around sensitive ecological zones.

Legal Reasoning

The NGT’s legal reasoning was anchored in the enforcement of environmental laws and adherence to the principles of sustainable development. Key aspects include:

• Compliance with Previous Orders: The Tribunal emphasized the need for strict compliance with its earlier directives and Supreme Court orders, underscoring that existing guidelines prohibit mining within stipulated distances of protected areas.
• Environmental Protection: Highlighting the fragility of the Sariska Tiger Reserve’s ecosystem, the NGT prioritized ecological balance and wildlife protection over unauthorized industrial activities.
• Polluter Pays Principle: Emphasized the accountability of polluters (in this case, illegal mining operators) to bear the costs of environmental restoration and compensation.
• Stringent Enforcement Measures: Advocated for the seizure and penalization of vehicles involved in illegal mining, rejecting the standard procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code as insufficient for environmental law enforcement.

The Tribunal advocated for a multi-agency approach, involving the State PCB, MoEF&CC, and local authorities to ensure comprehensive compliance and enforcement.

Impact

The judgment has significant implications for environmental law and policy, particularly in the context of balancing industrial activities with ecological conservation:

• Strengthened Environmental Regulations: Reinforces stringent regulations against illegal mining, setting a precedent for similar cases nationwide.
• Enhanced Enforcement Mechanisms: Establishes clearer guidelines for the seizure and penalization of entities involved in environmental violations, serving as a deterrent against future infractions.
• Empowerment of State Authorities: Empowers state bodies like the RSPCB and MoEF&CC to take decisive action, ensuring that environmental norms are upheld effectively.
• Promotion of Sustainable Development: Aligns industrial activities with sustainable practices, ensuring minimal ecological disruption in sensitive areas.

Future cases involving environmental violations can reference this judgment to advocate for stronger enforcement and adherence to ecological protection norms.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Eco-sensitive Zone (ESZ): Areas around protected regions like national parks and wildlife sanctuaries designated to minimize human impact and preserve ecological balance.
• Polluter Pays Principle: A principle where those responsible for pollution are financially liable for the damage caused to the environment.
• Overburden: The material (soil, rocks) that lies above a mineral deposit and must be removed to access the minerals.
• Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) Section 451: Pertains to the custody of property claimed by accused persons, including procedures for seizure and release.
• MoEF&CC: Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, the federal authority responsible for environmental policies and regulations in India.

Conclusion

The National Green Tribunal's judgment in Mukesh Sharma v. Rajasthan stands as a pivotal decision reinforcing the sanctity of eco-sensitive zones around protected wildlife reserves. By upholding stringent measures against illegal mining and emphasizing the "Polluter Pays" principle, the Tribunal not only safeguards the ecological integrity of the Sariska Tiger Reserve but also sets a robust legal precedent for environmental protection across India.

This judgment underscores the imperative of balancing industrial development with ecological conservation, ensuring that economic pursuits do not come at the expense of environmental degradation. It reinforces the role of judicial bodies in enforcing environmental laws and encourages proactive measures by state authorities to uphold and protect natural habitats.

Ultimately, the decision serves as a clarion call for enhanced environmental governance, stricter adherence to regulations, and collective responsibility towards sustainable development.