Common Cause v. Union of India and Ors.
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 07 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
1. Background
In 2017, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of illegal mining in the state of Odisha and the role of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in investigating and reporting on the matter. [Paragraph 1] The case originated from an application filed by the editor of a newspaper, seeking directions to investigate illegal mining activities in Odisha. [Paragraph 2-4]
2. Commission of Inquiry and Initial Reports
The Central Government appointed Justice M.B. Shah to conduct an inquiry into illegal mining, trade, and transportation of iron and manganese ore in Odisha. [Paragraph 27] The Commission released two reports, highlighting various forms of illegal mining, lack of law enforcement, and violations by specific lease holders. [Paragraph 29- 30] However, the Supreme Court decided not to rely on the Commission's reports for its judgment, as the mining lease holders were not given proper notice under certain sections of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. [Paragraph 31-34]
3. Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and Its Jurisdiction
The CEC was established by the Supreme Court and has been providing valuable advice and factual material for over a decade. [Paragraph 54] The Court clarified that the CEC's jurisdiction was not limited, and it was expected to give a detailed report on all aspects of illegal mining. [Paragraph 53]
4. Statutory Provisions Governing Mining Leases
The judgment outlines the statutory provisions governing mining leases, including the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), the Mineral Concession Rules (MCR), and the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules (MCDR). [Paragraph 60-83] These provisions cover various aspects, such as the grant of mining leases, mining plans, environmental protection, and penalties for violations.
5. Environmental Clearance (EC) Requirements
The judgment discusses the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 1994 and its requirements for obtaining environmental clearance (EC) for mining operations. [Paragraph 85-99] The key points include:
• The base year for determining the need for an EC is 1993-94. If the annual production after January 27, 1994, exceeds the annual production of 1993-94, it is considered an expansion requiring an EC. [Paragraph 92-93]
• Renewal of a mining lease after January 27, 1994, requires an EC, even if there is no expansion or modernization activity. [Paragraph 186(2)]
• Mining activities without an EC after January 27, 1994, constitute illegal or unlawful mining, and the mining lease holder must compensate the State with 100% of the price of the mineral extracted from 2000-2001 onwards. [Paragraph 186(5)]
6. Illegal Mining and Violations
The judgment addresses various forms of illegal mining and violations, including:
1. Mining without Environmental Clearance (EC): Any iron ore or manganese ore extracted contrary to the EIA Notification of 1994 or 2006 would constitute illegal or unlawful mining, and the mining lease holder must compensate the State with 100% of the price of the mineral extracted from 2000-2001 onwards. [Paragraph 186(5)]
2. Mining without Forest Clearance (FC): Any mining activity carried out after January 7, 1998, without a Forest Clearance (FC) amounts to illegal or unlawful mining, attracting 100% recovery of the price of the extracted mineral that is disposed of. [Paragraph 186(8)]
3. Violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: The judgment discusses the violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the need for Central Government approval for non-forest activities on forest lands. The mining lease holders who violated this Act are liable to compensate the State for the entire price of the iron ore and manganese ore illegally mined from January 7, 1998, until they obtained forest clearance. [Paragraph 179-185]
4. Violation of Section 6 of the MMDR Act: The CEC examined the case of seven mining lease holders for alleged violations of Section 6 of the MMDR Act, which relates to the maximum area for which a mining lease may be granted to a person. [Paragraph 187-192]
7. Penalties and Compensation
The judgment outlines the penalties and compensation to be paid by the mining lease holders for illegal mining activities:
1. Recovery of Mineral Price: The mining lease holders must compensate the State with 100% of the price of the mineral extracted illegally or unlawfully, either without an EC, FC, or both. In case of overlap, only one set of compensation is payable. [Paragraph 184, 186(9)]
2. Recovery of Rent, Royalty, and Taxes: In addition to the mineral price, any rent, royalty, or tax for the period during which illegal mining activities were carried out outside the mining lease area should be recovered. [Paragraph 186(5)]
3. Penal Compensatory Afforestation: The defaulting mining lease holders have been asked to pay additional Net Present Value (NPV) and penal compensatory afforestation charges, condoning the violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act to a limited extent. [Paragraph 178]
8. Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for Tribal Welfare and Area Development
The judgment discusses the establishment of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to focus on tribal welfare and area development in mineral-bearing areas, including livelihood, health, water supply, education, and infrastructure projects. [Paragraph 5] The SPV will have a Board of Directors to oversee grants, approve budgets, and handle legal matters, with its accounts being audited annually. [Paragraph 9]
9. Directions and Compliance
The Supreme Court issued various directions and set deadlines for compliance:
1. The State Government of Odisha was directed to promptly take a decision on the show cause notices issued to mining lease holders for violations of the Forest (Conservation) Act, preferably within four months and before December 31, 2017. [Paragraph 180]
2. The Union of India was directed to review and announce a more effective National Mineral Policy by December 2017. [Paragraph 17]
3. The Chief Secretary of Odisha was instructed to file an affidavit detailing the utilization of funds from mining lease holders for the benefit of tribals and area development. [Paragraph 19]
10. Conclusion
The Supreme Court's judgment addressed the issue of illegal mining in Odisha, outlining the statutory provisions governing mining leases, environmental clearance requirements, and penalties for violations. It emphasized the importance of responsible and scientific mining operations with a focus on environmental protection and preservation. The judgment also directed the establishment of a Special Purpose Vehicle for tribal welfare and area development in mineralbearing areas.
RELATED Blog
0 comments