Saranda Mandamus: Supreme Court makes Section 26A duty enforceable; declares that Wildlife Sanctuary notification does not curtail FRA rights, and calibrates boundaries using sustainable mining plan

Introduction

This commentary analyzes the Supreme Court of India's judgment dated 13 November 2025 (2025 INSC 1311) in the continuing forest governance proceedings in In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. The specific tranche concerns the Saranda landscape in West Singhbhum, Jharkhand, culminating in a binding direction to notify the Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WP Act).

Saranda, one of the world’s finest Sal (Shorea robusta) forests, is ecologically connected with Odisha and Chhattisgarh and forms a critical elephant landscape. The erstwhile State of Bihar had notified 31,468.25 hectares as “Saranda Game Sanctuary” in 1968 under the Bihar Forest, Hunting, Shooting and Fishing Rules, 1958. Following the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) 12 July 2022 direction to consider sanctuary declaration, the matter reached the Supreme Court through interlocutory applications seeking directions to secure statutory protection.

The litigation involved:

• The State of Jharkhand (GoJ), which vacillated between proposing 57,519.41 ha, then reverting to 31,468.25 ha, and finally attempting to reduce the sanctuary to 24,941.64 ha.
• The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), which placed before the Court the relevant sustainable mining framework and expert inputs.
• The Wildlife Institute of India (WII), which furnished a scientific report (30 May 2025) confirming Saranda’s ecological significance and corridor function.
• The Applicant Dr. Daya Shankar Srivastava (seeking sanctuary notification) and the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) (seeking protection of essential ancillary operations).

The Court engaged with this record against a backdrop of constitutional duties (Articles 48A and 51A(g)), the 2018 Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) built on the Justice M.B. Shah Commission and ICFRE’s carrying capacity analysis, and the National Forest Policy 1988 and National Wildlife Action Plan 2017–31.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court:

• Issued a mandamus directing the State of Jharkhand to notify, within three months, the area covered by the 1968 “Saranda Game Sanctuary” (31,468.25 ha) as a Wildlife Sanctuary under Section 26A WP Act, excluding only six compartments (KP-2, KP-10, KP-11, KP-12, KP-13, KP-14) that the MPSM earmarks as Mining Zone–I/II.
• Rejected the State’s attempt to shrink the protected area to 24,941.64 ha, including attempted exclusions even from compartments identified by the MPSM as conservation/no-mining zones.
• Reiterated its pan-India direction (from 26 April 2023 in the Godavarman matter) that mining is impermissible within National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries and within one kilometre from their boundaries.
• Clarified that declaring a Wildlife Sanctuary does not extinguish or diminish forest rights recognized under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA), and required the State to widely publicize that individual and community rights remain protected.
• Disposed of SAIL’s application by noting that ancillary operational necessities can continue as permissible activities subject to the FRA and applicable law; the mining ban within one kilometre stands.
• Recorded censure of the State’s repeated change in stance and dilatory conduct and signaled readiness to ensure compliance by contempt and mandamus.

Analysis

1. Statutory Framework and the Court’s Legal Reasoning

• Section 26A WP Act applied to reserve forests. The Court drew a clear statutory distinction between Section 18 (declaration of intention for areas outside reserve forests/territorial waters, followed by a claims process under Sections 19–24) and Section 26A(1)(b) (direct inclusion of areas comprised within reserve forests or territorial waters). Since Saranda’s Game Sanctuary area lies within reserve forest compartments, the Court held the State could proceed under Section 26A(1)(b) to declare a Wildlife Sanctuary without the Section 18–24 claims sequence.
• “Power coupled with duty.” The State’s statutory power to declare a sanctuary is a duty where the statutory criteria are met. The WII’s report and the State’s own affidavits established that Saranda meets the ecological criteria—adequate ecological, floral, faunal, geomorphological and zoological significance—thus triggering the State’s duty to notify under Section 26A.
• FRA rights remain intact. Responding to the State’s claims of potential displacement and impact on livelihoods, the Court explicitly affirmed that sanctuary declaration does not negate FRA rights. It relied on:
  • Section 3 read with Section 4(1) FRA (recognition and vesting of individual and community forest rights), which begins with a non-obstante clause;
  • Section 3(2) FRA (diversion for enumerated public facilities with safeguards); and
  • Section 24(2)(c) WP Act (continuation of existing rights in sanctuaries, viewed here as a general protection principle even though the present path is via Section 26A(1)(b)).
  The Court required public communication to allay fears and to educate forest-dwelling communities about their continued rights.
• Constitutional anchor. Articles 48A and 51A(g) framed the non-negotiable public duty to safeguard forests and wildlife. The Court also drew from the National Forest Policy, 1988 and National Wildlife Action Plan, 2017–31 as policy instruments with statutory flavor guiding decision-making.
• Use of expert planning instruments. The Court took a pragmatic, evidence-led approach:
  • It relied on WII’s 30 May 2025 report noting Saranda’s biodiversity richness, elephant corridors, 70% intact forests, and regional connectivity with Simlipal.
  • It calibrated the final boundary by excluding only the six compartments designated as Mining Zone–I/II under the 2018 MPSM (born of the Justice M.B. Shah Commission and ICFRE’s carrying capacity analysis), but rejected exclusions from compartments that the MPSM identifies as conservation/no-mining zones.
• One-kilometre mining prohibition around PAs reiterated. The Court reaffirmed its pan-India direction that mining is impermissible inside Protected Areas and within one kilometre from their boundaries—not to be confused with formal Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) notifications under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA), but a judicial prohibition applicable independent of ESZ notification status.
• Judicial supervision and accountability. The Court documented the State’s shifting positions, contemplated contempt, and issued a time-bound mandamus to ensure compliance—demonstrating the continuing mandamus model in environmental governance under the Godavarman docket.

2. Precedents and Authorities Cited and Their Influence

• National Forest Policy, 1988; NWAP 2017–31. Previously recognized by the Supreme Court as having statutory flavor in environmental adjudication (see Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India v. Union of India, (2013) 8 SCC 234; and the 26 Sep 2005 Godavarman order), these policies reinforce the mandate to expand and manage Protected Area networks, conserve biodiversity in-situ, and strictly scrutinize diversions.
• Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647; Intellectuals Forum, Tirupati v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta, (2024) 13 SCC 1; and Godavarman (In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal), (2025) 2 SCC 641. These decisions ground the sustainable development, precautionary, and intergenerational equity principles; the present judgment uses these to justify the MPSM-informed calibration of sanctuary boundaries and to justify the one-kilometre mining prohibition around PAs.
• Orissa Mining Corporation v. MoEF, (2013) 6 SCC 476. Cited to emphasize that FRA protects customary and community rights, access to minor forest produce, and community tenures—a key answer to the State’s apprehension about tribals’ displacement upon sanctuary notification.
• NGT Order dated 12 July 2022 (OA No. 59/2020/EZ). While not binding in the same way as Supreme Court precedents, the NGT’s early direction to consider sanctuary declaration anchored the factual context and underscored administrative inertia.

3. The WII Report and the Scientific Basis

The WII’s 30 May 2025 report, relied upon by the State itself, established:

• Historic and contemporary biodiversity importance across taxa—elephant, four-horned antelope (chousingha), sloth bear, mouse deer, gaur, and enriched avifauna and herpetofauna.
• Approximately 70% intact forests, with surveys recording 23 mammals, 138 birds, and 27 herpetofauna species in the current cycle, an increase over earlier surveys.
• Regional ecological connectivity between Saranda and Simlipal Tiger Reserve; Saranda acts as a vital corridor and potential recovery landscape (e.g., dispersal of tigers, gaur augmentation).
• Ongoing anthropogenic pressures (mining, encroachment), yet demonstrable ecological resilience and recovery signs in less-disturbed compartments.

This scientific foundation squarely satisfied Section 26A(1)(b) WP Act criteria and substantiated the Court’s conclusion that the power to declare a sanctuary had matured into a duty.

4. Justice M.B. Shah Commission, ICFRE, and the 2018 MPSM: Why They Matter

• Shah Commission (2013) and ICFRE carrying capacity study (2016) documented that accelerated mining in Saranda risks:
  • Drying of streams (e.g., Koina), degradation of micro-biodiversity, and cumulative ecological stress;
  • Permanent impacts on a “climatic climax” Sal forest that evolved over millennia;
  • Fragmentation of a premier elephant habitat within the Singhbhum Elephant Reserve.
• MPSM (2018) translated these findings into a spatial planning instrument:
  • Identified conservation/no-mining compartments (Appendix 1);
  • Designated Mining Zones I/II where certain mining may be managed with safeguards;
  • Explicitly recommended inviolate protection for critical wildlife habitats and corridors, and suggested notification as Conservation Reserves/ESAs under the WP Act/EPA.
• The Court’s boundary calibration—excluding only six Mining Zone compartments and refusing exclusion of conservation/no-mining compartments—embeds MPSM’s sustainable development logic into a judicially enforceable sanctuary boundary.

5. State of Jharkhand’s Contentions and the Court’s Responses

• Claim: Sanctuary would displace tribals, threaten cultural practices, and affect infrastructure. The Court held this is unfounded in law because FRA rights persist post-notification; Section 3(2) FRA permits diversions for public facilities with strict safeguards; and WP Act Section 24(2)(c) recognizes continuation of rights in sanctuaries. The Court directed proactive public communication to dispel misinformation.
• Claim: Economic dependence on iron ore; national steel policy needs. The Court accepted economic realities but refused to sacrifice ecologically critical compartments. It tied the boundary to MPSM’s zoning—allowing managed mining where acceptable, while preserving core conservation compartments.
• Claim: Security/Naxalite concerns. The Court did not treat this as a legal impediment to sanctuary declaration; instead, it emphasized rights protection, community engagement, and lawful administration under WP Act and FRA.
• Process concerns: “Hurried” WII endorsement. The Court noted the State’s inconsistent affidavits and emphasized that WII is the expert body; it relied on the final WII report and the State’s earlier admissions that no mining/diversion exists within the 126 compartments (save 4.31 ha of road diversion).

6. Impact and Forward-Looking Implications

• For Jharkhand and Saranda
  • Time-bound sanctuary notification covering approximately 31,468.25 ha minus six Mining Zone compartments restores statutory protection to the 1968 Game Sanctuary footprint.
  • Strengthens the Singhbhum–Simlipal ecological corridor; protects Koina and other streams; creates a platform for species recovery and augmentation where appropriate.
  • Community rights survive and are to be affirmatively communicated; essential public facilities remain permissible under FRA safeguards.
• For mining and industry
  • An absolute prohibition on mining within PAs and within one kilometre of their boundaries now applies to Saranda once notified, consistent with the Court’s pan-India direction.
  • Ancillary and incidental operations remain subject to FRA and other applicable laws; SAIL’s concerns were addressed on these terms.
  • MPSM emerges as a credible, judicially endorsed tool to reconcile conservation cores and mining zones at the landscape scale.
• For national environmental governance
  • Enforceable duty under Section 26A(1)(b) WP Act: Where reserve forest areas satisfy the ecological criteria, the State’s power to declare a sanctuary is enforceable by mandamus—especially when supported by expert reports (WII), national policy instruments (NFP/NWAP), and State admissions.
  • FRA–WPA harmonization: The Court’s express reaffirmation that FRA rights are not curtailed by sanctuary notification is a clarifying precedent that should mitigate future resistance based on displacement fears.
  • Practical template: Legacy game sanctuaries and ecologically critical reserve forests can be upgraded to sanctuaries using Section 26A(1)(b), with community rights intact and mining buffered by the one-kilometre prohibition.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Game Sanctuary vs Wildlife Sanctuary: A “Game Sanctuary” (1968 Bihar Rules) was a hunting-era protection label. A “Wildlife Sanctuary” under the WP Act is a statutory Protected Area with robust conservation mandates and management under the Act.
• Reserve Forest vs Protected Forest: Both are legal forest categories; reserve forests generally carry stricter protections. For reserve forests, Section 26A(1)(b) allows direct sanctuary declaration; the Section 18–24 claims procedure applies to non-reserve forest areas.
• Section 18 vs Section 26A WP Act:
  • Section 18: Intent notification for non-reserve forest areas, followed by a mandatory claims inquiry (Sections 19–24), then final notification under Section 26A.
  • Section 26A(1)(b): Direct inclusion when the area lies within reserve forests or territorial waters and meets ecological criteria.
• FRA rights: Statutorily recognized individual and community rights (e.g., habitation, cultivation for livelihood, community forest resource governance, minor forest produce, grazing) remain intact even inside sanctuaries. Section 3(2) FRA allows limited, small-scale diversion for public facilities (e.g., schools, roads), subject to strict conditions and Gram Sabha recommendation.
• Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) vs 1-km mining prohibition: ESZs are notified under the EPA as regulatory buffers with graded restrictions. Separately, the Supreme Court has imposed a judicially mandated, pan-India prohibition on mining within one kilometre of PA boundaries. This mining ban applies regardless of whether a formal ESZ is notified.
• Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM): A planning framework emerging from the Shah Commission and ICFRE studies, zoning compartments into mining and conservation categories to minimize landscape-level ecological harm.
• Mandamus: A judicial command to a public authority to perform a statutory duty—here, to notify a sanctuary under Section 26A within three months.

Conclusion

This judgment is a significant advance in India’s environmental jurisprudence on at least three axes. First, it operationalizes Section 26A(1)(b) WP Act as an enforceable duty in reserve forests—where science shows ecological significance, the Court will ensure that statutory protection is not frustrated by administrative drift. Second, it harmonizes wildlife law and tribal rights by expressly holding that declaring a sanctuary does not dilute FRA rights; indeed, the State is directed to publicly educate communities about their rights within protected areas. Third, it embraces evidence-based, landscape-level planning by embedding the MPSM’s zoning logic into the sanctuary boundary, while maintaining a bright-line one-kilometre mining prohibition around PAs.

For Saranda, this means a protected core of approximately 31,468.25 hectares (minus six Mining Zone compartments), scientifically anchored in WII’s findings and a critical keystone of the Singhbhum–Simlipal corridor. For governance nationwide, it furnishes a replicable template: where ecologically critical reserve forests exist—especially legacy game sanctuaries—Section 26A(1)(b) can and should be used to secure sanctuary status, with FRA rights intact and sustainable development safeguarded by careful zoning and strict buffers against high-intensity activities like mining.

The Court’s approach—principled, science-led, and rights-conscious—reaffirms that ecological integrity and community rights are not competing goals but mutually reinforcing mandates under the Constitution and statute. The three-month timeline and threat of contempt underscore that in the face of accelerating ecological loss, timely action is not just desirable; it is legally obligatory.