In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union Of India

REPORTABLE

2025 INSC 1311
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IN RE: SARANDA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

I.A. NO.153500 OF 2024
[Applications for Direction]
WITH
I.A. NO.153501 OF 2024
[Application for exemption from filing official translation]
WITH
I.A. NO. 153502 OF 2024
[Application for Intervention]
WITH
I.A. NO. 251558 OF 2025
[Applications for Intervention]
WITH
I.A. NO. 252324 OF 2025
[Application for placing on record Additional Facts and
Documents]
WITH
I.A. NO. 252325 OF 2025
[Application for exemption from filing official translation]
WITH
I.A. NO. 252948 OF 2025
[Application for Direction]

WITH

I.A. NO. 252949 OF 2025
[Application for exemption from filing official English
Translation of Annexures]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.11.13
11:58:04 IST
Reason:

WITH
1

I.A. NO. 265049 and 265353 OF 2025
[Application for Clarification/Modification and for filing
Additional Documents]
IN
I.A. NO. 252948 OF 2025

WITH
I.A. NO. 268196 OF 2025
[Application for Modification]
IN
I.A. NO.153500 OF 2024

WITH
I.A. NOS. OF 2025
Diary Nos.265620-265621 of 2025
[Applications for Impleadment and Direction]
WITH
I.A. NO. OF 2025
Diary No.272221 of 2025
[Applications for Direction]

IN

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 202 OF 1995

IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
…PETITIONERS

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS


IN THE MATTER OF:

DR. DAYA SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA …APPLICANT
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. …APPLICANT
2

INDEX

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 3
II. SUBMISSIONS ....................................................................... 27
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ............................................... 31
(i) KEY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE WP ACT .................. 33
(ii) REPORT BY THE WII ........................................................... 39
(iii) NATIONAL FOREST POLICY, 1998 AND NATIONAL WILDLIFE
ACTION PLAN, 2017-31 ............................................................ 44
(iv) JUSTICE M.B. SHAH COMMISSION REPORT ........................ 46
(v) STAND TAKEN BY THE STATE OF JHARKHAND .................. 53
IV. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS ......................................... 68


J U D G M E N T


B.R. GAVAI, CJI

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The issue in the present matter pertains to the Saranda
forest area in the State of Jharkhand which is undisputedly
one of the most pristine Sal forests in the world. It is a
biodiversity hotspot, interconnected with forests in the States of
Odisha and Chhattisgarh, creating a contiguous wildlife corridor.
The region is rich in biodiversity and wildlife and includes
within its confines the critically endangered and endemic Sal
Forest Tortoise, four horned antelope, Asian palm civet, wild
3

elephants, leopards, sambar and chital deer, bison, barking deer,
and numerous species of birds and reptiles.
2. The erstwhile unified State of Bihar, by a notification
th 1
bearing No. 1168F dated 16 February 1968 declared an
extent of 31,468.25 hectares (approx. 314 sq. kms) in the
Saranda forest area as the “Saranda Game Sanctuary”. This
was done pursuant to relevant provisions of the Bihar Forest,
Hunting, Shooting and Fishing Rules, 1958 . On bifurcation of
the then State of Bihar into States of Bihar and Jharkhand ,
this area now falls within the State of Jharkhand.

3. One Dr. R.K. Singh, a distinguished wildlife scientist, being
2
aggrieved by the fact that the Government of Jharkhand and
3
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change had failed
4
to declare the Eco-Sensitive Zone in respect of
Sasangada/Saranda Sanctuary based in the West Singbhum
District of Jharkhand, filed an Original Application being OA No.
59/2020/EZ before the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone
5
Bench, Kolkata . It was specifically contended in the said OA that
the two massive iron ore mining projects, Kiriburu and

1
Hereinafter, “1968 Notification”.
2
Hereinafter, “GoJ”.
3
Hereinafter, “MoEF&CC”.
4
Hereinafter, “ESZ”.
5
Hereinafter, “NGT”.
4

6
Hereinafter, “WP Act”.
5

5. Thereafter, since no action was taken by the GoJ in
this respect, an IA came to be filed before this Court in the
present proceedings being IA No.153500 of 2024 by one Dr.
Daya Shankar Srivastava, a resident of Palama, Jharkhand,
seeking directions to the State of Jharkhand to declare the
Saranda Game Sanctuary with area of 314.68 sq. km. as notified
by the 1968 Notification by the erstwhile State of Bihar as a deemed
sanctuary under the provisions of the WP Act.
6. Alongwith the IA for directions, two IAs being IA No.
153502 of 2024 seeking permission to intervene in the present
proceedings and IA No.153501 of 2024 seeking exemption
from filing official translation have also been filed by the
applicant.
7. It appears from the material placed on record by the
th
applicant that vide notification dated 26 September 2001, the
Department of Forest and Environment of GoJ notified the
entire forest area of Saranda, Kolhan, and Porahat Forest
Division as the core area of the Singbhum Elephant
Reserve.
th
8. order dated 7 August 2024, notice came to be
Vide
issued to the State of Jharkhand and MoEF&CC.
6

9. In response thereto, the MoEF&CC filed a counter-
th
affidavit dated 17 September 2024, wherein it was stated that
no record was available with the State of Jharkhand as to the
notification of Saranda Game Sanctuary in 1986.
10. A counter-affidavit also came to be filed by the State of
th
Jharkhand dated 10 November 2024, wherein it was stated
7
by one Mr. Aviroop Sinha, Divisional Forest Officer , Saranda,
Chaibasa, West Singhbum that in the last Working Plan of
Saranda Forest Division prepared by one Mr. K.S. Rajhans for
the period between 1976-77 and 1995-96 based on the 1968
Notification, the land in question consisted of 126 compartments
of five Reserve Forest Blocks and two Protected Forest Blocks
covering an area of 31,468.25 hectares.
11. It will be relevant to refer to the following statements
made in the said affidavit:
“7. …Besides since the inception of these Notified (R.F.
& P.F.) Forests within the stated area of 31,468.25
Hectares (vide Notification No. 1168 F dated
16.02.1968) compromising (sic) of 126
Compartments , neither any kind of mining
excavation operations nor any diversion of Forest
Land for Mining purpose as approved by Forest
Conservation Act 1980 has been undertaken ,
except for part area of approximately 4.31 hectares
within compartments KP12 and KP 21 has been

7
Hereinafter, “DFO”.
7

diverted by Kiriburu Meghahataburu Iron Ore Mine
for non-excavatory ancillary mining activity (Road).
Moreover, as on date, there are no operational
mines inside the 126 compartments of stated
within the stated area of 31,468.25 Hectares .”
[Emphasis supplied]

12. It can thus be seen that it was clearly stated that except
for part area of 4.31 hectares within compartments KP12 and
KP 21 where iron ore mine was located, neither any kind of
mining excavation operations nor any diversion of forest land
for mining purpose has been undertaken in respect of the said
area of 31,468.25 hectares.
13. Upon perusal of the aforesaid affidavit, this Court
th
passed an order on 20 November 2024, which reads thus:
“……………..
5. It is not in dispute that the said area consists of
pristine forest and it is a repository of some of the finest
Sal trees in the country. It is also not disputed that it
is having rich wildlife and as such requires protection
and preservation.
6. A period of 2½ years has lapsed from the date on
which the aforesaid observations were made by the
learned NGT.
7. Since the State places reliance on the judgment of
the NGT, it should have explained to us as to why it
has not followed the directions issued by the learned
NGT.
8. The 2006 Amendment to the 1972 Act has been
brought into effect with a purpose of imposing
stringent restrictions for the protection of wildlife.
8

If that be so, there is no reason as to why the State
did not take steps to implement the directions
issued by the learned NGT on 12.07.2022 .
9. We, therefore, direct the State to file an affidavit
explaining the aforesaid within a period of two weeks
from today.”
[Emphasis supplied]

14. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, an affidavit dated
nd
2 December 2024 came to be filed by the DFO, Saranda stating
8
therein that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Wildlife -
9
cum-Chief Wildlife Warden had moved a proposal on
th
29 November 2024 for the declaration of Saranda Wildlife
Sanctuary and Sasangdaburu Conservation Reserve. It was
stated that the proposal sought to declare an area of approx.
575.1941 sq. kms. as “Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary” and an
area of approx. 136 sq. kms. as “Sasangdaburu Conservation
Reserve” in accordance with a map proposed by the Wildlife
10 th
Institute of India dated 29 November 2024.
15. It will be relevant to refer to the following averments
nd
made in the said affidavit dated 2 December 2024:
“ 10. That the stated proposal is also in conformity
with the Management Plan for sustainable Mining
(MPSM) in Saranda and Chaibasa in Singbhum

8
Hereinafter, “PCCF-WL”.
9
Hereinafter, “CWLW”.
10
Hereinafter, “WII”.
9

district. Besides, due consideration has been
given for inclusion of the Conservation Area (in
MPSM) which is also having two biodiversity
hotspot zones, while delineating the boundaries
of the proposed “Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary” and
‘Sasangdaburu Conservation Reserve’ .”


16. It can thus be seen that the State specifically submitted
that the stated proposal is also in conformity with the
11
Management Plan for Sustainable Mining in Saranda and
Chaibasa in Singbhum district. Upon perusal of the affidavit
nd
dated 2 December 2024, this Court passed the following
th
order on 20 February 2025:
“ 1. The issue in these applications pertains to
Saranda Game Sanctuary in Saranda Forest
Division.
2. In the affidavit dated 02.12.2024 filed by Mr.
Aviroop Sinha, DFO Saranda, Van Bhawan,
Chaibasa, it is stated that the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest Wildlife (PCCF-WL)- cum-Chief
Wildlife Warden (CWLW), Jharkhand vide its Memo
No. 1263 dated 29.11.2024 has moved a proposal to
the Government of Jharkhand for declaration of
“Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary” and “Sasangdaburu
Conservation Reserve”.
3. In paragraph 9 of the said affidavit, the details of
the areas to be included in “Saranda Wildlife
Sanctuary” admeasuring 575.1941 sq. kms. and the
areas to be included in “Sasangdaburu Conservation
Reserve” admeasuring 136.03806 sq. kms. have been
given.


11
Hereinafter, “MPSM”
10

4. We expect the State of Jharkhand to take a final
decision in that regard expeditiously.
5. List these applications on 16.04.2025.”

17. When the matter was thereafter listed before this Court
th
on 16 April 2025, an affidavit came to be filed by the same
officer, Mr. Aviroop Sinha. In the said affidavit, it was stated
that the proposal for declaration of protected areas under the
WP Act, namely Saranda and Sasangdaburu was received from
th
PCCF-WL-cum-CMLW on 29 November 2024 and the same
has been sent back by the Department of Forest, Environment
and Climate Change, GoJ to the Principal Chief Conservator of
12 rd
Forests (HoFF) on 23 March 2025 for his examination and
comments.
18. Taking a serious note of this change of stand by the
State Government, this Court passed the following order on
th
16 April 2025:
“……….
8. It was almost after a period of four months from
the date on which the proposal was received by the
State Government from PCCF-WL-cum-CMLW that
the proposal has again been sent back to the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for his
comments.


12
Hereinafter, “PCCF”.
11

9. We do not understand the propriety of keeping
the matters pending almost for four months,
particularly when an impression was given to this
Court in the affidavit dated 02.12.2024 that the
matter is being processed expeditiously by the
State Government.
10.
The Secretary, Department of Forest,
Environment and Climate Change, Government of
Jharkhand is, therefore, directed to remain present
in this Court on 29.04.2025 at 10:30 a.m. and show
cause as to why action should not be taken for dilly
dallying the matter without any valid reasons.
………”
[Emphasis supplied]

19. Accordingly, a compliance affidavit came to be filed on
th
28 April 2025 in furtherance of the directions issued by this
th
Court vide order dated 16 April 2025. In the said affidavit
filed by one Mr. Aboobacker Siddique P, working as Secretary,
Forest, Environment and Climate Change, GoJ, a reference
was made to the chronology of events till the said date. It was
stated that upon receiving comments from PCCF (HoFF) on the
proposal submitted by PCCF-WL-cum-CWLW, certain defects
were pointed out in the said proposal and the stand was taken
for rectification of the said defects.
20. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 15 of the said
th
affidavit dated 28 April 2025:

12

“15. I say that the State Govt. is duty bound to ensure
statutory compliance with the mandate of Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 for declaring any forest as
sanctuaries and conservation reserve. I say that the
intention and commitment of the State Govt. towards
preserving the said area is unwavering and can be
borne by the fact even before submitting the said
Proposal, the State Government had engaged the
services of the premier forest institute of the country,
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun to carry out a
detailed Research Proposal on Assessment and
Monitoring of Biodiversity Values in Saranda Forest
Division, and had received a Project Proposal in
March 2024 itself. I reiterate, my and my State Govt’s
commitment to implement the orders of this Hon’ble
Court.”

21. It can thus clearly be seen that the GoJ has clearly
stated that it was duty bound to ensure statutory compliance
with the mandate of WP Act for declaring any forest as
sanctuaries and conservation reserves. By the said affidavit,
the State Government had expressed its unwavering intention
and commitment to preserving the said area. The affidavit
would also show that the State Government had engaged the
services of the WII to carry out a detailed research proposal for
assessment and monitoring of biodiversity values in Saranda
Forest Division. The affidavit further stated that the State
Government was awaiting the response/detailed justification
from the WII in respect of the proposed Saranda Wildlife
13

Sanctuary and Conservation Reserve, along with supporting
documents, for identifying the potential area for declaration as
a protected area under the WP Act. The State of Jharkhand by
the said affidavit, therefore, prayed for further reasonable time
to obtain all necessary approvals and to carry out all requisite
statutory compliances and procedural formalities.
th
22. Therefore, the matter was listed on 29 April 2025. It
will be relevant to refer to the order passed by this Court dated
th
29 April 2025, which reads thus:
“……..
9. In the affidavit it is stated that now the State
Government has proposed to notify an area of
57,519.41 hectares as against the original proposal
of 31,468.25 hectares as the Wildlife Sanctuary. It is
further stated that an area admeasuring 136.03806
sq. kms. or 13603.806 hectares, has been proposed
to be notified as a Conservation Reserve. It is stated
that the proposal has now been sent for comments to
the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun (WII). It is
stated that as soon as the comments are received
from the WII the proposal would be placed before the
State Wildlife 15 Board (SWB) and upon the decision
of the SWB, the matter would be placed before the
State Cabinet and after the approval by the State
Cabinet, the final notification would be issued.
10. We, therefore, request the WII to examine the
proposal and forward the proposal along with its
comments to the State of Jharkhand within a period
of one month from today. The Secretary, Department
of Forest, Environment and Climate Change,
Jharkhand would communicate this order to the WII.
On receipt of the comments from WII, we direct the
14

State of Jharkhand to complete all the formalities
within a period of two months thereafter.
……….”

23. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the State of
nd
Jharkhand filed a supplementary affidavit on 22 July 2025
stating therein that the WII examined the proposal and
th
submitted its report on 30 May 2025. It was stated that the
WII report was placed before the Chief Minister-cum-
Department Minister, for in-principal approval. It was further
stated that the Competent Authority had directed the Chief
Secretary, Jharkhand to convene a meeting with the Industry
Department, Mines and Geology Department, Forest
Department and Revenue Department to consider the proposal.
th
It was further stated that the said meeting was convened on 13
May 2025. It was stated that during the course of the said
meeting, the Mines and Geology Department presented
th
concerns regarding the aforementioned proposal dated 29
April 2025. It was stated that consequently a committee was
constituted under the Chairmanship of the Chief Conservator
of Forest, Wildlife, Jharkhand consisting of various officers as
Members, with a mandate to thoroughly review the proposals
for Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary. It was stated that the
15

24. This Court was informed by the said affidavit that the next
13
meeting of the State Board for Wildlife was scheduled for the
st
1 August 2025 and the proposal for declaration of Saranda Wildlife
Sanctuary would be placed before the SBWL for thorough
deliberation.

2. It was earlier brought to the notice of this Court that
in spite of the NGT issuing a direction to the State
Government vide order dated 12.07.2022 to consider
whether the area of Saranda/Sasangada Forest needs to
be declared as a sanctuary or not, the State of Jharkhand
had not taken any steps.

13
Hereinafter, “SBWL”.
16

3. The applicant herein, therefore, was required to file an
I.A. No.153500/2024. This Court vide order dated
20.11.2024 had recorded that it was not in dispute that
the area consists of pristine forest and it is a repository of
some of the finest Sal trees in the country. The Court also
recorded that it was an undisputed position that the said
area was having rich wildlife and as such requires
protection and preservation. The Court therefore,
prima facie observed that there was no reason as to
why the State did not take steps to implement the
directions issued by the NGT on 12.07.2022. We,
therefore, directed the State to file an affidavit explaining
the aforesaid position within a period of two weeks from
the date of said order, i.e. 20.11.2024.
4. In compliance to the aforesaid, an affidavit was filed
before this Court on 02.12.2024. In the said affidavit it
was stated that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
Wildlife (PCCF-WL)-cum-Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW),
Jharkhand vide Memo No. 1263 dated 29.11.2024 had
moved a proposal to the Government of Jharkhand for
declaration of “Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary” and
“Sasangdaburu Conservation Reserve”. In the said
affidavit, the details of the area to be included in the
Saranda wildlife sanctuary was shown as 575.1941 sq.
km. and the area to be included in Sasangdaburu
Conservation Reserve was shown as 136.03806 sq. km.
5. Vide our order dated 20.02.2025, we expected that
the State Government would take action
expeditiously .
6. Thereafter, when the matter was listed before us on
16.04.2025, another affidavit was filed by the State
Government stating therein that the matter was
examined by the Department of Forest, Environment and
Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand and was
sent back on 23.03.2025 to the PCCF (HoFF) for
examination.
7. This Court vide order dated 16.04.2025 specifically
found that it was almost after a period of four months
from the date on which the proposal was received by the
State Government from the PCCF-WL cum CWLW that
the proposal was again sent back to the Principal Chief
17

Conservator of Forest for his comments. The Court
expressed that there was no propriety of keeping the
matters pending for almost four months, particularly
when an impression was given to this Court in the
affidavit dated 02.12.2024 that the matter is being
processed expeditiously by the State Government.
We had, therefore, directed the Secretary, Department of
Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government
of Jharkhand to remain present before this Court on
29.04.2025.
8. On 29.04.2025, Mr. Abu Bakr Siddiqui, Secretary,
Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change,
Government of Jharkhand was present in the Court. An
affidavit was also filed on behalf of the State Government.
In the said affidavit, it was specifically stated that the
State Government had proposed to notify an area of
57,519.41 Hectares as against the original proposal
of 31,468.25 Hectares as the wildlife sanctuary. The
affidavit further stated that an area admeasuring
136.03806 sq. km. Or 13603.806 Hectares has been
proposed to be notified as conservation reserve. It was
further stated that the proposal was sent for comments
to the wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun. It was
also stated that as soon as the comments are
received from the WII, the proposal would be placed
before the State Cabinet and after the approval of the
State Cabinet, the final notification would be issued .
9. On the basis of the said affidavit dated 29.04.2025,
we had requested the WII to examine the proposal
and forward the same along with its comments to the
State of Jharkhand within a period of one month
from the said date. We had also directed the Secretary,
Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change,
Jharkhand, to communicate the order to the WII. We had
further directed the State of Jharkhand to complete
all the formalities upon receipt of the comments
from WII within a period of two months thereafter.
10. A supplementary affidavit filed by the State dated
22.07.2025 states that the WII has given its positive
recommendations Vide report dated 30.05.2025.
18

11. In that view of the matter, the State was expected
to complete the formality, i.e. the approval of the
State Wildlife Board and the Cabinet within a period
of two months thereafter, i.e. on 30.07.2025.
However, now we are informed that the Chief
Secretary of the State of Jharkhand on 13.05.2025
constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of
Chief Conservator of Forest for conducting ‘a
comprehensive review of the boundary/area
determination of the proposed Sanctuary in
consideration of the interest of the State and in
compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court’ .
12. The primary reason given in the said letter was that
the Geological Survey of India has identified certain
Prospecting Areas for future mining which fall within the
proposed area of Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary.
13. It is, thus, clear to us that the conduct of the
State, to say the least, has been totally unfair. When
on various occasions, i.e. on 20.02.2025, 16.04.2025
& 29.04.2025, a clear indication was given to the
Court that the State has proposed to notify an area
of 57,519.41 Hectares as wildlife sanctuary and
conversation (sic) reserve, now the State is turning
on its stand by appointing a Committee for the same
purpose vide order dated 13.05.2025. If the State was
alive to the concerns expressed in the Minutes dated
13.05.2025, then nothing prohibited it from placing
the same before this Court in the affidavit dated
02.12.2024, or the affidavit dated 29.04.2025.
14. As a matter of fact, when the Secretary was present
in the Court, in the affidavit dated 29.04.2024, a clear
indication was given to the Court that upon approval by
the WII, all the necessary formalities, i.e. obtaining the
approval of the State Wildlife Board and the Cabinet
would be completed. We had, therefore, given two
months period to comply with the formalities.
15. We are of the considered view that the State
Government of Jharkhand is in clear Contempt of the
order passed by this Court on 29.04.2025.
19

16. We, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary of the State
of Jharkhand to remain present in this Court on
08.10.2025 at 10.30 am and show cause as to why an
action should not be taken against him for committing
Contempt of the order of this Court dated 29.04.2025.
17. We further clarify that if the State fails to comply with
its statements made in the affidavit dated 29.04.2025,
the Court would be required to issue a Mandamus
commanding the State to comply with the statement
made before this Court.
18. The application for intervention is rejected while
reserving the rights of the applicant to take recourse to
such remedies as are available in law.
19. If the order dated 29.04.2025 is complied with in the
meantime, the personal presence of the Chief Secretary,
State of Uttarakhand shall stand exempted.
20. List on 08.10.2025.”
[Emphasis supplied]

26. A perusal of the aforesaid order would reveal that on the
said date, this Court was informed that the Chief Secretary of the
th
State of Jharkhand on 13 May 2025 constituted a Committee
under the Chairmanship of Chief Conservator of Forest for
conducting a comprehensive review of the boundary/area
determination of the proposed Sanctuary in consideration of the
interest of the State and in compliance with the orders of this Court.
We had noted that the primary reason given in the letter appointing
the said Committee was that the Geological Survey of India has
identified certain Prospecting Areas for future mining which fall
20

within the proposed area of Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary. We had,
therefore, observed that the conduct of the State, to say the least,
had been totally unfair. We further observed that on various
th th th
occasions, i.e. , on 20 February 2025, 16 April 2025 and 29
April 2025, a clear indication was given to the Court that the State
had proposed to notify an area of 57,519.41 hectares as wildlife
sanctuary and conservation reserve, but now the State was turning
around on its stand by appointing a Committee for the same
th
purpose vide order dated 13 May 2025. We, therefore, directed the
Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand to remain present in this
th
Court on 8 October 2025 and to show cause as to why an action
should not be taken against him for committing contempt of the
th
order of this Court dated 29 April 2025. We further clarified that
if the State failed to comply with its statements made in the affidavit
th
dated 29 April 2025, the Court would be required to issue a
mandamus commanding the State to comply with the statement
made before this Court. We further clarified that if the order dated
th
29 April 2025 was complied with, the personal presence of the
Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand shall stand exempted.
th
27. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 17
September 2025, Shri Avinash Kumar, Chief Secretary, GoJ was
21

22

2. We have extensively heard Shri Kapil Sibal, learned
senior counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand and
Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae.
3. Shri Sibal, submits that since inception, the proposal
with regard to an area of 31,468.25 hectares for
declaration as a wildlife sanctuary has been under
consideration. However, confusion arose on account of a
communication addressed by the Wildlife Institute of
India (for short “WII”), indicating an area of 57,519.41
hectares. It is stated that on the basis of the said letter, a
statement came to be made before this Court in an
affidavit. However, the WII itself by a subsequent
communication stated that the earlier letter was only a
part of internal communication and the said letter was
not authenticated.
4. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of this situation
a statement came to be made.
5. He further submitted that there is no intention to run
away from the earlier proposal of declaration of Saranda
Wildlife Sanctuary.
6. From the affidavit dated 22.07.2025 sworn by Mr.
Aviroop Sinha, Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest
Division, Chaibasa, Government of Jharkhand, we find
that, at least, an area admeasuring 31,468.25
hectares, has already been notified as game
sanctuary vide Notification No. 1168 F dated
16.02.1968. As such, there should be no difficulty in
notifying the said area as a Wildlife Sanctuary. The
affidavit clearly states that in 126 compartments
situated in the aforesaid area, neither any kind of
mining excavation operations nor any diversion of
Forest Land for Mining purpose has been undertaken.
It is categorically stated that there are no operational
mines inside the 126 compartments of the
aforestated area .
7. In that view of the matter, we see no impediment
in the State proceeding to notify the aforesaid area of
31,468.25 hectares as a Wildlife Sanctuary, which
has already been notified vide Notification dated
16.02.1968 .
23

8. Insofar as the other question of including any
additional area is concerned, the same is a matter to be
considered by the State Government in consultation with
the State Wildlife Board.
9. We had issued notice to the Chief Secretary, noticing
that the State of Jharkhand was adopting a topsy-turvy
approach and on every date and the stand was changed.
Earlier though the proposal was sent by the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest Wildlife (PCCF-WL)-cum-
Chief Wildlife Warden (CMLW), Jharkhand to the State
Government, the State Government again sent it back to
the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF) for
reconsideration.
10. As such, we had directed the Secretary, Department
of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, State of
Jhakharnad to remain personally present before this
Court vide our order dated 16.04.2025.
11. Accordingly, on 29.04.2025, the Secretary,
Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change,
State of Jharkhand was present before this Court. The
impression conveyed was that the State proposed to
notify an area of 57,519.41 hectares as a Wildlife
Sanctuary. The only difficulty indicated was that certain
communications from the WII were not received. This
Court had, therefore, requested the WII to furnish their
comments within a stipulated period.
12. As such, a clear impression was given to the Court
that the State Government intended to notify an area
of 57,519.41 hectares as a Wildlife Sanctuary.
13. Subsequently, a supplementary affidavit came to
be filed on 22.07.2025 stating therein that a
Committee had been constituted to conduct a
comprehensive review of the boundary/area
determination of the proposed sanctuary, keeping in
view the interest of the State and in compliance with
the orders of this Court.
14. In the meantime, an application (I.A. No. 214893 of
2025) also came up for consideration before this Court
filed by one Electrosteel Castings Ltd. seeking directions
24

to keep the proposal for notification of the Saranda
Wildlife Sanctuary in abeyance.
15. In this background, we were not unjustified in
gathering an impression that the State was taking
the Court for a ride. As such, we had directed the
Chief Secretary to remain present in the Court today.
We had further clarified that if the order dated
29.04.2025 passed by this Court was complied with, the
presence of the Chief Secretary shall stand dispensed
with.
16. At least, insofar as an area of 31,468.25 is concerned,
there appears to be no impediment to the State notifying
the said area as a Wildlife Sanctuary.
17. In view of the order passed by this Court on
17.09.2025, we could have issued a mandamus to
that effect today itself inasmuch as the said area is
very well identified .
18. However, Shri Sibal makes a statement that the
State Government shall file an undertaking before
this Court within a period of one week from today to
the effect that the area of 31,468.25 hectares will be
notified as a Wildlife Sanctuary .
19. If the State proposes to include any additional area
to the Wildlife Sanctuary, it shall be at liberty to do so.
20. List these applications on 15.10.2025.”
[Emphasis supplied]

31. It can thus be seen that after hearing the submissions, we
were of the view that even if the stand of the State is to be accepted,
that an area of 57,519.41 hectares was erroneously arrived at,
there should be no difficulty in declaring an area admeasuring
31,468.25 hectares as a wildlife sanctuary, since the same was
already notified as a Game Sanctuary vide the 1968 Notification.
25

nd
We had noticed that the affidavit dated 22 July 2025 clearly
depicted that in the 126 compartments situated in the aforesaid
area, neither any kind of mining excavation operations nor any
diversion of Forest Land for Mining purpose has been undertaken.
We had also clearly observed that the State of Jharkhand was
adopting a topsy-turvy approach and was changing its stand on
every date. We also observed that in view of the order dated
th
17 September 2025, we could have issued a mandamus to that
effect on the said date itself. Shri Sibal made a statement that the
State Government shall file an undertaking before this Court within
a period of one week from the date of the said order to the effect
that the area of 31,468.25 hectares would be notified as a Wildlife
Sanctuary.
th
32. The matter was, thereafter, listed on 15 October 2025
th
on which date it was adjourned to 17 October 2025.
th
33. In pursuance to our order dated 8 October 2025,
th
an undertaking by way of an affidavit was filed on 17 October
2025 on behalf of the State of Jharkhand along with the draft
notification for Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary thereby declaring an
area admeasuring 24,941.64 hectares, which was a part of the
Saranda Reserve Forest Area, as Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary.
26

34. The State also filed an IA being No. 268196 of 2025 for
th
modification of the order dated 8 October 2025 passed by this
th
Court on the same date i.e. , 17 October 2025. It is pertinent to
note that the prayer in the IA was that the State be allowed to
declare only the proposed area of 24,941.64 hectares as
Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary.
th
35. Vide an order dated 27 October 2025, after hearing
learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the parties, the matter was
reserved for judgment. In furtherance of the said order, IA Diary No.
272221 of 2025 is also taken up for consideration with the present
batch of applications.
36. In this factual background, the matter arises for
consideration before us.
II. SUBMISSIONS

37. We have heard Shri K. Parameshwar learned
Amicus Curiae , Shri Kapil Sibal learned Senior Counsel for the
State of Jharkhand, Ms. Shibani Ghosh learned counsel for
the Applicant-Dr. Dayanand Shankar Srivastava and
Shri Tushar Mehta learned Solicitor General of India for the
27

14
Applicant-Steel Authority of India .
38. Shri Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae , placed
before us the entire factual background starting from the
1968 Notification to MPSM in Saranda and Chaibasa in
Singhbum District, Jharkhand, 2018 and the WII’s 2025
Report. He also placed the previous orders of this Court so also
the various affidavits filed by the State.
39. He submitted that the power to declare a sanctuary
under the WP Act, is a power coupled with a duty. It is further
submitted that the State, having recognized the ecological
significance of Saranda Forest area, has a duty and an
obligation to create a statutorily protected area by way of a
wildlife sanctuary.
40. He further submitted that the declaration of a Wildlife
Sanctuary under the WP Act does not affect existing rights of
tribal and forest dwelling communities in the region, which are
protected under Section 3 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,
15
2006 .

14
Hereinafter, “SAIL”.
15
Hereinafter, “FRA”.
28

41. Ms. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Applicant Dr. Dayanand Shankar Srivastava, submitted that
the State of Jharkhand has failed to fulfil its constitutional
obligation to protect forests and wildlife. It is submitted that
on account of deforestation and mining activities in the forest
areas, elephants are forced to migrate to Chhattisgarh, there
has been a reduction in the population of various species of
wildlife in the area and the Koina river has been severely
damaged.
42. Per contra Shri Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the
State of Jharkhand, submitted that the Saranda region, which
is proposed to be declared as a Wildlife Sanctuary, is notified
as an area under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. It is
submitted that the said area has been inhabited for centuries
by the Ho , Munda , Uraon and allied Adivasi communities
whose subsistence and cultural traditions are intrinsically tied
to forest produce.

43. He submitted that the area sought to be declared as a
Wildlife Sanctuary also encompasses vital public infrastructure
such as roads, schools, health centres, police posts, settled
agricultural lands, etc. He further submitted that the Saranda
29

Forest Division hosts 26% of India’s iron ore reserves, and that
the steel plants of SAIL and Tata, are critically dependent on
the mining in this area. He further submitted that declaration
of entire area as a Wildlife Sanctuary would halt mining and
affect employment opportunities. He, therefore, submitted
that this Court should accept the declaration of 24,941.64
hectares of forest area within the Saranda Forest Division.
44. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India
for SAIL, submitted that the mining leases in the State of
Jharkhand form approximately 50% of the total captive iron
ore resource base used by SAIL, and that the continued
utilisation of these valid and subsisting operational leases is
crucial to achieving the production levels envisioned in the
National Steel Policy, 2017. He further submitted that certain
incidental and ancillary activities are undertaken within the
1-km eco-sensitive zone of proposed Wildlife Sanctuary. He,
therefore, sought protection of existing operational mining
leases and ancillary activities falling within proposed wildlife
sanctuary area.


30

III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

45. From the various affidavits filed by the GoJ since the very
inception including the latest one filed by the Chief Secretary, GoJ,
it is clear that the stand of the GoJ has been that in an area
admeasuring 31,468.25 hectares consisting of 126 compartments,
no mining activities are carried out and that the land is not diverted
for any non-forest use. If that be the case, even if we were to accept
the argument that the area of 57,519.41 hectares was erroneously
mentioned on account of some confusion between the
officers/officials because of the tentative report of the WII, we see
no reason as to why the State should now change its stand to
reduce the area of the wildlife sanctuary from 31,468.25 hectares
to 24,941.64 hectares.
46. The ostensible reason given by the State is that the area in
question comprises of vital public infrastructure, including road
networks, crucial for regional connectivity, educational institutions
and agricultural lands etc. Another reason given is that the area
includes long-established habitations of Scheduled Tribes and
customary lands, indispensable to the livelihood and cultural
practices of the local communities. Another reason given is that the
affidavit filed before this Court by the DFO, Chaibasa, West
31

Singhbum and the Secretary, Ministry of Forest, Environment and
Climate Change, GoJ did not take into consideration the existing
rights of the existing inhabitants of the Game Sanctuary which is
an area covered by the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
It is further stated that the earlier affidavits have been filed without
taking into consideration as to which areas in the Game Sanctuary
are of adequate ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphological, natural
or zoological significance for the purpose of protecting, propagating
or developing wildlife or its environment and therefore required to
be notified as a Wildlife Sanctuary. Another reason given is that the
declaration of the entire Game Sanctuary as a Wildlife Sanctuary
will also restrict existing mining activities in the ESZ operated by
SAIL and other entities. It stated that the proposed area of 24,
941.64 hectares within the Saranda Forest Division meets the
requirements prescribed under Section 26A of the WP Act and its
declaration as a Wildlife Sanctuary would fully achieve the intended
objectives of wildlife conservation.

47. It is also the contention of the State of Jharkhand that
during the recent field visits, genuine apprehensions were recorded
among indigenous and forest-dependent communities regarding
possible displacement from their ancestral lands.
32

48. The thrust of the arguments of Shri Sibal is that the areas
which have been excluded are the areas where there are
habitations and infrastructural developments. Another
apprehension expressed by Shri Sibal is that if the aforesaid area
is included, it will also lead to the problem of the Naxalite
insurgency in the said area.
(i) KEY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE WP ACT
49. For considering the submissions made before us, it will be
relevant to refer to certain provisions of the WP Act.

(2) The notification referred to in sub-section (1) shall
specify, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits
of such area.
Explanation .—For the purposes of this section, it
shall be sufficient to describe the area by roads,
rivers, ridges or other well-known or readily
intelligible boundaries.”

33

51. It can thus be seen that Section 18 of the WP Act
empowers the State Government to declare its intention to
constitute any area other than an area comprised within any
reserve forest or the territorial waters as a sanctuary if it
considers that such area is of adequate ecological, faunal,
floral, geomorphological, natural or zoological significance, for
the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wild life
or its environment.
52. It is thus clear that Section 18 of the WP Act would
apply for declaring any area as a Wildlife Sanctuary which is
not comprised within any reserve forest or the territorial
waters.

34

and extent of the rights of any person in or over the land
comprised within the limits of the sanctuary.

( a ) specifying, as nearly as possible, the
situation and the limits of the sanctuary;
and
( b ) requiring any person, claiming any
right mentioned in Section 19, to prefer
before the Collector, within two months
from the date of such proclamation, a
written claim in the prescribed form,
specifying the nature and extent of such
right with necessary details and the
amount and particulars of compensation,
if any, claimed in respect thereof.
22. Inquiry by Collector .—The Collector shall, after
service of the prescribed notice upon the claimant,
expeditiously inquire into—
( ) the claim preferred before him under
a
clause ( b ) of Section 21, and
35

( b ) the existence of any right mentioned in
Section 19 and not claimed under clause
( b ) of Section 21,
so far as the same may be ascertainable from the
records of the State Government and the evidence of
any person acquainted with the same.
23. Powers of Collector
.—For the purpose of such
inquiry, the Collector may exercise the following
powers, namely:—
( a ) the power to enter in or upon any land
and to survey, demarcate and make a map
of the same or to authorise any other
officer to do so;
( b ) the same powers as are vested in a civil
court for the trial of suits.”

( a ) exclude such land from the limits of the
proposed sanctuary, or
( b ) proceed to acquire such land or rights,
except where by an agreement between the
owner of such land or holder of rights and
the Government, the owner or holder of
such rights has agreed to surrender his
rights to the Government, in or over such
land, and on payment of such
compensation, as is provided in the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013),
36

( c ) allow, in consultation with the Chief
Wild Life Warden, the continuance of any
right of any person in or over any land
within the limits of the sanctuary.”

57. It can thus clearly be seen that the Collector, in
consultation with the Chief Wildlife Warden, is entitled to allow
the continuance of any right of any person in or over any land
within the limits of the sanctuary.

( a ) a notification has been issued under
Section 18 and the period for preferring
claims has elapsed, and all claims, if any,
made in relation to any land in an area
intended to be declared as a sanctuary,
have been disposed of by the State
Government; or
( b ) any area comprised within any reserve
forest or any part of the territorial waters
which is considered by the State
Government to be of adequate ecological,
faunal, floral, geomorphological, natural
or zoological significance for the purpose
of protecting, propagating or developing
wild life or its environment, is to be
included in a sanctuary,
the State Government shall issue a notification
specifying the limits of the area which shall be
comprised within the sanctuary and declare that the
said area shall be a sanctuary on and from such date
as may be specified in the notification:
37

Provided that where any part of the territorial waters
is to be so included, prior concurrence of the Central
Government shall be obtained by the State
Government:
Provided further that the limits of the area of the
territorial waters to be included in the sanctuary
shall be determined in consultation with the Chief
Naval Hydrographer of the Central Government and
after taking adequate measures to protect the
occupational interests of the local fishermen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), the right of innocent passage of any vessel
or boat through the territorial waters shall not be
affected by the notification issued under sub-section
(1).
(3) No alteration of the boundaries of a sanctuary
shall be made by the State Government except on a
recommendation of the National Board.”

59. A harmonious reading of Section18 with Section 26A of
the WP Act would reveal that the statute itself makes a
distinction between any area other than an area comprised
within any reserve forest or the territorial waters and any area
within any reserve forest or any part of the territorial waters.
60. As discussed hereinabove, insofar as the area
admeasuring 31,468.25 hectares is concerned, from the very
beginning it has been the stand of the GoJ that the said area
comprises of 126 compartments and that within these
compartments, neither any kind of mining excavation
operations nor any diversion of forest land for mining purpose
38

has been undertaken. In none of the affidavits, it has been
stated that the areas concerned do not have ecological, faunal,
floral, geomorphological, natural or zoological significance for the
purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wildlife or its
environment. It is further to be noted that Section 26A of the WP
Act has been brought on the statute book by way of Act 44 of 1991
nd
with effect from 2 October 1991.
(ii) REPORT BY THE WII
61. It also cannot be disputed that the WII is a body of experts
in the field of wildlife protection who possess the scientific
knowledge with respect to conservation measures.
62. It will, therefore, be relevant to refer to the observations,
findings and recommendations of the WII in its report dated
th
30 May 2025, which has been placed on record by the GoJ itself
nd
in its affidavit dated 22 July 2025. With regard to the ecological
importance of the area, the WII observed thus:
“The region, historically recognised for its rich
biodiversity and presently harbouring species like the
Asiatic Elephant, Four-horned Antelope, and Sloth
Bear, is experiencing habitat degradation and
fragmentation. Historical records and ongoing surveys
underscore the presence of numerous threatened
species, highlighting the area's vital conservation
value. The proposed Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary and
Sasangdaburu Conservation Reserve aim to protect
39

this biodiversity hotspot in the junction of Jharkhand
and Odisha.……… Thus, the proposed area is of
immense ecological, biodiversity (floral and faunal),
and geomorphological significance from historic,
present and future contexts and is critical for the
protection, conservation, propagation and
development of wildlife and its habitat.
……
4. SINGHBHUM ELEPHANT RESERVE
….The Singhbhum Elephant Reserve holds a critical
value for the proposed Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary
and Sasangdaburu Conservation Reserve, as it is
home to a number of elephant corridors and
biodiversity……
LULC map reveals that a substantial portion of the
dense forest cover in the Singhbhum Elephant Reserve
is located within the proposed Saranda Wildlife
Sanctuary and Sasangdaburu Conservation Reserve.
This underscores the importance of the proposed
area, which facilitates species movement within the
Singhbhum Elephant Reserve by functioning as a
vital wildlife corridor and hotspot.”

40

Traditionally, the intricate relationship between
indigenous communities and forest ecosystems,
often characterized by traditional resource
management practices, has contributed to the
relative integrity of these natural environments.
However, increasing anthropogenic pressures
from escalating demographic pressures,
evolving socio-economic conditions, and
heightened resource demands are altering this
relationship, thereby exerting considerable
pressure on the region's forest resources and
ecological stability (WII, 2016). This
underscores the importance of the Saranda
Forest Division for the proposed Saranda
Wildlife Sanctuary and Sasangdaburu
Conservation Reserve, particularly regarding
elephant movement and corridors within the
Singhbhum Elephant Reserve.
iii. Previous studies have specifically investigated
the occupancy of the Four-horned Antelope
within the Saranda Forest Division (Joshua et
al., 2016). Limited information exists regarding
the status of this species across its various
fragmented habitats in India. Comparing
historical and recent surveys highlights the
ecological significance of the Saranda Forest
Division for the species.
iv. A 2016 study by the Wildlife Institute of India
documented the presence 16 mammal species
from the region. Further, the ongoing study by
WII in the Saranda Forest Division has recorded
23 mammal species. Although the abundance
of species in the Gua range may be relatively
lower, likely influenced by mining activities, the
recorded species richness underscores the
importance of this area. Similar patterns are
also observed in avifauna (the Wildlife Institute
of India 2016 study recorded 116 species). The
current ongoing study added to the list with a
substantial increase up to 138 bird species from
the Saranda Forest Division. Furthermore,
41

herpetofauna records show a notable increase
from 13 species in the previous study (WII,
2016) to 27 species in the present ongoing
study within the region.
v. It is pertinent to mention that over 70% of the
area in the Saranda Forest Division has intact
forest. Many previous studies and the current
ongoing study have predominantly focused on
the areas with better accessibility and very often
these are under disturbance regime. Despite
considerable anthropogenic pressures, the area
demonstrates resilience and continues to
support a notable diversity of wildlife across
various taxa.
vi. Mouse deer and Nilgai are recorded occasionally
in the Tholkobad beat of the Saranda Forest
Division (Tiwari 2024), indicating the slow
comeback of these species. It is possible that
there could be more species when sampling can
be intensified and there also possibility of
reintroduction or augmentation of locally
extinct species and low population species,
respectively. The ongoing WII study's
identification of species hotspots in the lower
Koina range, adjacent to the Samta and
Sasangda range, further emphasizes the
ecological significance of these less-explored
parts of the Division.
vii. Given its geographic relationship with the
Simlipal Tiger Reserve (Odisha), the Saranda
Forest Division plays a vital role in regional
conservation. Despite the absence of a resident
tiger population, Saranda is known to facilitate
the dispersal of tigers and other species
between the states (Qureshi et al.. 2022) and
with declaration of wildlife sanctuary
population recovery for species like tiger and
gaur can be accomplished.

42

8. CONCLUSION
In summation, the Saranda Forest Division
within Jharkhand represents a critical ecological
zone facing substantial environmental pressures,
primarily from mining activities. The region's rich
biodiversity and its importance for species like the
Asiatic elephant, Chousingha, Mouse deer and sloth
bear are under threat, necessitating a balanced
approach that integrates conservation strategies with
sustainable development practices. Hotspots for the
population of Elephant and Four-horned Antelope
are found within and outside the Proposed Saranda
Wildlife Sanctuary and Sasangdaburu Conservation
reserve highlighting the importance of the region
from local and landscape contexts. Hence, the
notification of the proposed wildlife sanctuary and
conservation reserve by the state will be a significant
value addition for protection of biodiversity and
ecological integrity in the local, regional and national
contexts.”

64. It can thus be seen from the report of the WII that it is clear
that the land in question squarely falls within clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 26A of the WP Act.
65. It cannot be disputed that under Article 48A of the
Constitution of India, the State is mandated to protect and improve
the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the
country.
66. Further, under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, every
citizen has a duty to protect and improve the natural environment
43

including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion
for living creatures.
67. There cannot, therefore, be any dispute that according to
these constitutional commitments and the environmental
jurisprudence, as has developed on account of various judgments
of this Court over the decades, the State is required to recognize
and protect areas of ecological significance, and particularly to
conserve and protect wildlife and its inhabitants. The State has a
positive obligation and a mandate to provide statutory protection to
forests and wildlife and declare ecologically significant areas to be
statutorily protected. Furthermore, upon a perusal of the report of
the WII and also the various affidavits filed by the State itself, it
cannot be disputed that the Saranda Forest require protection as
envisaged under Section 26A of the WP Act.
(iii) NATIONAL FOREST POLICY, 1998 AND NATIONAL
WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN, 2017-31
th
68. This Court, in the present proceedings on 26 September
16
2005 recognized that the National Forest Policy, 1988 provides for
the identification of protected areas, recognition of customary rights

16
(2006) 1 SCC 1
44

over forest areas, forest conservation with involvement of the local
community, and the need for regular surveys of forest resources.

45

70. This Court, again in the case of Centre for Environmental
17
Law, World Wide Fund-India v. Union of India and Others
held that the National Wildlife Action Plan, 2017-31 was also having
a statutory flavour.
71. The National Wildlife Action Plan 2017-31 recognises the
need to enhance the protected area network (broadly including
national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, community reserves etc.) and
to demarcate boundaries for protected areas. The National Wildlife
Action Plan 2017-31 further stresses on in situ conservation of
threatened species, and the need for immediate conservation
measures including the protection of critical habitants.
72. We, therefore, have no hesitation in saying that in view of
the mandate of Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution,
Section 26A of the WP Act and particularly in the light of the report
of the WII, the State cannot run away from its duty to declare the
extent of 31,468.25 hectares as Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary.
(iv) JUSTICE M.B. SHAH COMMISSION REPORT
73. There is another angle from which the matter can be
looked at.

17
(2013) 8 SCC 234
46

74. In pursuance to the 2013 Report of Justice M.B. Shah
Commission of Inquiry on illegal mining of iron and
manganese ores in the State of Jharkhand, the Indian Council
18
of Forestry Research and Education, Dehradun conducted a
study to suggest annual capacity for iron ore production. The
th
ICFRE submitted its draft final report on 28 March 2016. The
report was examined by a committee constituted on
th
4 April 2016 by the MoEF&CC. Based on the committee’s
recommendations, the ICFRE report was accepted by the
competent authority in the MoEF&CC. Further, based on
ICFRE’s Report, the MoEF&CC issued the MPSM vide
th
Office Memorandum dated 8 June 2018.
75. It will be relevant to refer to some of the observations
of the Justice M.B. Shah Commission’s 2013 Report as
summarized in the MPSM. Para 4 thereof reads thus:
“4. It was observed that considering the aforesaid
position and mining operation in dense Saranda
Forest which is admittedly having wildlife and is
one of finest elephant habitats, would be
destroyed without getting further benefit of iron
ore. As such, in the aforesaid area, Sal trees and
associates which were existing are already destroyed
and which has affected the environment. Hence,
capping of production in each mine is a must. ”
(Emphasis supplied)

18
Hereinafter “ICFRE”.
47

76. It can thus clearly be seen that the MPSM found that
the area in question is one which has wildlife and it is one of
the finest elephant habitats, however, it is in danger of being
destroyed if mining operations are continued without getting
further benefit of iron ore. The Commission, therefore, noted
that capping of production in each mine is a must.
77. It will also be relevant to refer to the following
paragraphs of the MPSM:
7. In the State of Jharkhand, most of the mines are
in the Saranda forest area which is the finest
elephant habitat and part of Notified Elephant
Reserve and also highly eco– sensitive, as regards
bio–diversity. Most of the mines are very close to the
rivers (i.e. Koena and others) or natural streams and
in many of the cases; streams are either passing
through or quite close by the leased area and
catchments area. The sudden increase in
production would increase the effective area
under mining and result into drying of these
streams, degradation of environment, loss of
micro bio–diversity of these streams, adverse
effect on all roads, agriculture, horticulture,
ground water table, pollution of air and water and
eco–system as a whole. Modifications of mining
plans to increase production without knowing the
real effect on a self-contained Saranda ecosystem
has raised many questions on environment of the
area. It may leave a permanent impact which
would be difficult to rejuvenate the climatic
climax natural forest.
8. The Commission observed that mining leases are
granted, without having any prior consent of the
Forest Department. The proposed lease is a fresh
grant in the virgin forest of a very high tree density
48

and one of the finest elephant habitats. Whether
diversion of one of the best natural virgin forest areas
in the country for a lease of 12 to 13 years life is really
worthy and justified? The natural forest which had
taken millions of years to come to this climatic
climax would be destroyed for a mine of 12 to 13
years life span.
A serious thought in this regard
shall be given.
As per the Indian Minerals Yearbook 2013 (Part-
I) 52nd Edition the total iron ore (hematite) deposit
in West Singhbhum district is 2304 MT (proven 1840
MT and probable 464MT). With 60 MTPA extraction
of ore, the ore reserve will last for 40 years.
9. MoEF&CC is formulating parameters to identify
pristine and biologically diverse and rich forest areas
which shall not be diverted for mining projects.
Though the parameters are yet to be finalised and
shall be suggestive in decision making, the report of
the ICFRE on carrying capacity study of Saranda
region and Dr Bist Committee has examined all
aspects of bio diversity conservation in tune with the
concerns of Shah Commission and identified
critical wildlife habitats, corridors linking critical
wildlife habitats, rich forests and such other
important forest areas in Saranda Forest which
needs to be protected and conserved for posterity
and are considered as ecologically important and
may be considered as inviolate for iron ore mining
and may be notified as Conservation Reserve/
Corridors or Ecologically Sensitive Areas in
accordance with the provisions of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 and the Environment
(Protection) 1986 respectively by the State
Government.
10. The ICFRE submitted the draft final report on
28.3.2016. The report was examined by a committee
constituted on 4.4.2016 by the MoEF&CC. Based on
the committee’s recommendations, the ICFRE report
was accepted by the MoEF&CC.
11 . The process for identifying critical pristine forests
for conservation is in progress and the concept has
49

been used in identifying the forest area which are
critical for wildlife, forest and biodiversity
conservation. As a policy the dense and biodiverse
forest with significant wild flora and fauna
population should not be diverted for mining purpose
especially when sufficient mineral deposits are
available elsewhere for feeding the related industries.
In Saranda and Chaibasa sufficient iron and
manganese ores deposits are available in the
eastern boundary of Saranda forest adjoining
Chaibasa with good forest cover which according
to ICFRE can last for more than 50 to 100 years
and mining may be allowed there with sufficient
safeguards. This area has many operating mines
and has been worked in past also and already
fractured and disturbed the landscape. This area
is adjoining the mining areas of Odisha. The iron
ore complex in Meghahatuburu, Kiriburu,
Baraibury, Gua and Noamundi in Jharkhand and,
Barbil and Joda in Odisha makes contiguous area
for iron and manganese ore mining and may be
developed for sustainable mining with adequate
integrated forest and wildlife management plan.
The entire landscape of eastern Jharkhand and
western Odisha is full of wild elephants and
traditional corridor exists for the movement of
elephants from one habitat to another.
(Emphasis supplied)

78. The Plan, therefore, clearly notes that the sudden
increase in production has dangerous effects resulting into
drying of these streams, degradation of environment, loss of
micro biodiversity of these streams and adverse effect on all
roads, agriculture, horticulture, ground water table, pollution
of air and water and eco–system as a whole. It further states
50

that modifications of mining plans to increase production
without knowing the real effect on a self-contained Saranda
ecosystem may leave a permanent impact which would be
difficult to rejuvenate the climatic climax natural forest.
79. The Plan also expressed concern as to whether the
natural forests which had taken millions of years to come to
this climatic climax can be permitted to be destroyed for a
mine of 12 to 13 years lifespan.
80. It specifically emphasized on identification, protection
and conservation of the critical wildlife habitats, corridors
linking critical wildlife habitats, rich forests and such other
important forest areas in Saranda Forest. It emphasized that
they need to be protected and conserved for posterity and are
considered as ecologically important and may be considered
as inviolate for iron ore mining. Therefore, it was
recommended that these areas in Saranda Forest be notified
as Conservation Reserve/Corridors or Ecologically Sensitive
Areas in accordance with the provisions of the WPA and the
51

19
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 respectively by the
State Government.
81. The Commission also observed that in Saranda and
Chaibasa, sufficient iron and manganese ores deposits are
available in the eastern boundary of Saranda forest adjoining
Chaibasa with good forest cover which according to ICFRE can
last for more than 50 to 100 years and mining activities could
be undertaken there with sufficient safeguards. It is further
observed that the area has operating mines and has also been
working in past, which has already fractured and disturbed
the landscape. It is further observed that the iron ore complex
in Meghahatuburu, Kiriburu, Baraibury, Gua and Noamundi
in Jharkhand and Barbil and Joda in Odisha makes
contiguous area for iron and manganese ore mining and may
be developed for sustainable mining with adequate integrated
forest and wildlife management plan. The Commission
recorded that the entire landscape of eastern Jharkhand and
western Odisha is full of wild elephants and traditional
corridor exists for the movement of elephants from one habitat
to another.

19
Hereinafter “EPA”.
52

82. Appendix 1 of the MPSM lists the forest compartments
which shall be conservation areas/no mining zones. It is thus
clear that even another expert body has identified the areas
which shall be conservation areas/no mining zones.


(v) STAND TAKEN BY THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

83. In its latest proposal, the State has sought to exclude
several compartments from the wildlife sanctuary, however,
only 6 out of them ( i.e. , KP-2, KP-10, KP-11, KP-12, KP-13 and
KP-14) are categorized as either Mining Zone-I or Mining Zone-
II under the MPSM. Even the compartments which are
identified in the MPSM as conservation areas/no-mining
zones ( i.e. , TK-8, TK-9, T-4, T-5, T-6, T-25 to T-32) have been
sought to be excluded from the wildlife sanctuary.
84. We see no justification in excluding the compartments
which have been notified in the MPSM to be conservation
area/no mining zone from the proposed wildlife sanctuary. We
say so because the MPSM has recommended thus in order to
adhere to the principle of Sustainable Development.
85. This Court has time and again emphasized on the
necessity to strike a balance between environmental
53

protection and the need for development. A reference in this
regard can be made to the following judgments of this Court:
(i) Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India
20
and Others ;
(ii) Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P.
21
and Others
(iii) State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v.
22
Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another ; and
(iv) T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India
23
and Others (In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal) .

86. The main opposition of the State is on the ground that
the rights of the tribals and the traditional forest dwellers
residing in the area proposed to be declared as wildlife
sanctuary would be adversely affected. We find that the said
contention is absolutely without any substance.
87. As already discussed hereinabove, under Section
24(2)(c) of the WPA, the Collector, in consultation with the
Chief Wild Life Warden, is entitled to allow the continuation of

20
(1996) 5 SCC 647
21
(2006) 3 SCC 549
22
(2024) 13 SCC 1
23
(2025) 2 SCC 641
54

any right of any person in or over any land within the limits of
the sanctuary.
88. In this respect, it will also be relevant to refer to the
FRA. The Preamble of the FRA reads thus:
“An Act to recognise and vest the forest rights and
occupation in forest land in forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest
dwellers who have been residing in such forests for
generations but whose rights could not be recorded;
to provide for a framework for recording the forest
rights so vested and the nature of evidence required
for such recognition and vesting in respect of forest
land
Whereas the recognised rights of the forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest
dwellers include the responsibilities and authority for
sustainable use, conservation of biodiversity and
maintenance of ecological balance and thereby
strengthening the conservation regime of the forests
while ensuring livelihood and food security of the
forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers;
And whereas the forest rights on ancestral lands and
their habitat were not adequately recognised in the
consolidation of State forests during the colonial
period as well as in independent India resulting in
historical injustice to the forest dwelling Scheduled
Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who are
integral to the very survival and sustainability of the
forest ecosystem;
And whereas it has become necessary to address the
long standing insecurity of tenurial and access rights
of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers including those who were
forced to relocate their dwelling due to State
development interventions….”
55

89. It will also be relevant to refer to Section 3 of the FRA
which reads thus:
“ 3. Forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled
Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers .—(1)
For the purposes of this Act, the following rights,
which secure individual or community tenure or
both, shall be the forest rights of forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest
dwellers on all forest lands, namely:—
( a ) right to hold and live in the forest land
under the individual or common
occupation for habitation or for self
cultivation for livelihood by a member or
members of a forest dwelling Scheduled
Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers;
( b ) community rights such as nistar , by
whatever name called, including those
used in erstwhile Princely States,
Zamindari or such intermediary regimes;
( c ) right of ownership access to collect,
use, and dispose of minor forest produce
which has been traditionally collected
within or outside village boundaries;
( d ) other community rights of uses or
entitlements such as fish and other
products of water bodies, grazing (both
settled or transhumant) and traditional
seasonal resource access of nomadic or
pastoralist communities;
( e ) rights, including community tenures of
habitat and habitation for primitive tribal
groups and pre-agricultural communities;
( f ) rights in or over disputed lands under
any nomenclature in any State where
claims are disputed;
( g ) rights for conversion of Pattas or leases
or grants issued by any local authority or
56

any State Government on forest lands to
titles;
( h ) rights of settlement and conversion of
all forest villages, old habitation,
unsurveyed villages and other villages in
forests, whether recorded, notified, or not,
into revenue villages;
( i ) right to protect, regenerate or conserve
or manage any community forest resource
which they have been traditionally
protecting and conserving for sustainable
use;
( j ) rights which are recognised under any
State law or laws of any Autonomous
District Council or Autonomous Regional
Council or which are accepted as rights of
tribals under any traditional or customary
law of the concerned tribes of any State;
( k ) right of access to biodiversity and
community right to intellectual property
and traditional knowledge related to
biodiversity and cultural diversity;
( l ) any other traditional right customarily
enjoyed by the forest dwelling Scheduled
Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers,
as the case may be, which are not
mentioned in clauses ( a ) to ( k ) but
excluding the traditional right of hunting
or trapping or extracting a part of the body
of any species of wild animal;
( m ) right to in situ rehabilitation including
alternative land in cases where the
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional
forest dwellers have been illegally evicted
or displaced from forest land of any
description without receiving their legal
entitlement to rehabilitation prior to the
13th day of December, 2005.

57

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980), the Central
Government shall provide for diversion of forest land
for the following facilities managed by the
Government which involve felling of trees not
exceeding seventy-five trees per hectare, namely:—
( a ) schools;
( b ) dispensary or hospital;
( c ) anganwadis ;
( d ) fair price shops;
( e ) electric and telecommunication lines;
( f ) tanks and other minor water bodies;
( g ) drinking water supply and water
pipelines;
( h ) water or rain water harvesting
structures;
( i ) minor irrigation canals;
( j ) non-conventional source of energy;
( k ) skill upgradation or vocational training
centres;
( l ) roads; and
( m ) community centres:
Provided that such diversion of forest land shall be
allowed only if,—

90. It can thus be seen that none of the rights about which
the State has expressed its concerns, through its application
58

th
for modification of order of this court dated 8 October 2025,
would at all be disturbed for either an individual or for the
community as a whole.
91.
It will also be relevant to refer to sub-Section (1) of
Section 4 of the FRA which reads as under:
“ 4. Recognition of, and vesting of, forest rights in
forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers .—(1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force, and subject to the provisions of this
Act, the Central Government hereby recognises and
vests forest rights in—
( a ) the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes in
States or areas in States where they are
declared as Scheduled Tribes in respect of
all forest rights mentioned in Section 3;
( b ) the other traditional forest dwellers in
respect of all forest rights mentioned in
Section 3.”

92. It can thus be seen that sub-Section (1) of Section 4
of the FRA which begins with a non-obstante clause recognizes
and vests forest rights in the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes
and also the other traditional forest dwellers. Under sub-
Section (2) thereof, even if any modification of forest rights or
resettlement in critical wildlife habitats of national parks or
wildlife sanctuaries for creating inviolate areas for wildlife
59

conservation recognized under the said Act has to be done,
very stringent provisions have been made.
93. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the
provisions contained in Section 24(2)(c) of the WPA and
Section 3 read with Section 4(1) of the FRA amply protect the
rights of the tribals and forest dwellers even after declaration
of the said area as a wildlife sanctuary.
94. The bogey that on declaration of wildlife sanctuary, the
habitations and rights of the tribals and traditional forest
dwellers will be lost and vital public infrastructures like
educational institutions, roads, etc., will have to be
demolished is only a figment of imagination of the State.
Rather than taking such a stand before this court, we are of
the considered view that the State should have educated the
tribals/forest dwellers residing in the said areas about the
rights available to them under the FRA as well as the WPA.
95. Further, in order to allay the apprehension of the State
with regard to any protest or resistance from the tribals and
forest dwellers, we are of the view that the same would be
taken care of in view of the directions that we propose to issue
hereinafter.
60

96. As already discussed hereinabove, Section 3 of FRA
protects the individual rights as well as the rights of the
community pertaining to habitat and habitation, conversion
of leases or grants, the right to live on forest lands, as well as
in situ rehabilitation. Further, the diversion of forest lands is
permitted under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the FRA for
any of the purposes stated therein. In that view of the matter,
we find that the contention of the State that it has reduced the
area of 31,468.25 hectare to 24,941.64 hectare taking into
consideration the protection of the rights of the tribals and
forest dwellers is without any substance.
97. It will also be relevant to refer to the following
observations made by this court in the case of Orissa Mining
Corporation Limited v. Ministry of Environment and
24
Forests and others :
“55. The definition clauses read with the
abovementioned provisions give emphasis to
customary rights, rights to collect, use and dispose
of minor forest produce, community rights like
grazing cattle, community tenure of habitat and
habitation for primitive tribal groups, traditional
rights customarily enjoyed, etc. Legislative intention
is, therefore, clear that the Act intends to protect
custom, usage, forms, practices and ceremonies
which are appropriate to the traditional practices of

24
(2013) 6 SCC 476
61

forest dwellers.”

98. It is further to be noted that for the effective
implementation of the Act, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs has
issued certain guidelines and communicated the same to all
th
the States and the Union Territories vide its letter dated 12
July 2012. The said guidelines have already been reproduced
in the judgment of this court in the case of Orissa Mining
(supra), therefore, we avoid reproduction of the same in the
present judgment.
99. Even in the 2006 judgment in the present proceedings
(supra), this court has recognized the importance of protecting
and safeguarding community rights in various laws. It will be
relevant to refer to some of the observations of this Court:
“ 73. It has been recognised that one of the essentials
for forest management is the conservation of total
biological diversity, the network of national parks,
sanctuaries, biosphere reserves and other protected
areas to be strengthened and extended adequately.
74. The strategy under the Forest Policy is to have a
minimum of one-third of the total land area of the
country under forest or tree cover. In the hills and in
mountainous regions, the aim should be to maintain
two-thirds of the area under such cover in order to
prevent erosion and land degradation and to ensure
the stability of the fragile ecosystem. Clause 4.3 lays
down the aspects of management of State forests. It
would be instructive to reproduce hereunder certain
parts of the policy with a view to have clarity in the
62

aim to be achieved:
“4.3.1. Schemes and projects which
interfere with forests that clothe steep
slopes, catchments of rivers, lakes, and
reservoirs, geologically unstable terrain
and such other ecologically sensitive areas
should be severely restricted. Tropical
rain/moist forest, particularly in areas like
Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Andaman and
Nicobar Islands should be totally
safeguarded.
4.3.2. No forest should be permitted to be
worked without the Government having
approved the management plan, which
should be in a prescribed format and in
keeping with the National Forest Policy.
The Central Government should issue
necessary guidelines to the State
Government in this regard and monitor
compliance.
*
4.4.1. Forest land or land with tree cover
should not be treated merely as a resource
readily available to be utilised for various
projects and programmes, but as a
national asset which requires to be
properly safeguarded for providing
sustained benefits to the entire
community. Diversion of forest land for
any non-forest purpose should be subject
to the most careful examinations by
specialists from the standpoint of social
and environmental costs and benefits.
Construction of dams and reservoirs,
mining and industrial development and
expansion of agriculture should be
consistent with the need for conservation
of trees and forests. Projects which involve
such diversion should at least provide in
their investment budget, funds for
regeneration/compensatory afforestation.
63

4.4.2. Beneficiaries who are allowed
mining and quarrying in forest land and in
land covered by trees should be required
to repair and revegetate the area in
accordance with established forestry
practice. No mining lease should be
granted to any party, private or public,
without a proper mine management plan
appraised from the environmental angle
and enforced by adequate machinery.
*
4.6. Having regard to the symbiotic
relationship between the tribal people and
forests, a primary task of all agencies
responsible for forest management,
including the forest development
corporations should be to associate the
tribal people closely in the protection,
regeneration and development of forests
as well as to provide gainful employment
to people living in and around the forest.
While safeguarding the customary rights
and interests of such people, forestry
programmes should pay special attention
to the following—
— one of the major causes for
degradation of forest is illegal cutting and
removal by contractors and their labour.
In order to put an end to this practice,
contractors should be replaced by
institutions such as tribal cooperatives,
labour cooperatives, government
corporations, etc. as early as possible;
— protection, regeneration and optimum
collection of minor forest produce along
with institutional arrangements for the
marketing of such produce;
— development of forest villages on a par
with revenue villages;
— family-oriented schemes for improving
64

the status of the tribal beneficiaries; and
— undertaking integrated area
development programmes to meet the
needs of the tribal economy in and
around the forest areas, including the
provision of alternative sources of
domestic energy on a subsidised basis, to
reduce pressure on the existing forest
areas.
*
4.8.1. Encroachment on forest lands has been on the
increase. This trend has to be arrested and effective
action taken to prevent its continuance. There should
be no regularisation of existing encroachments.
*
4.9. The main considerations governing the
establishment of forest-based industries and supply
of raw material to them should be as follows:
— As far as possible, a forest-based
industry should raise the raw material
needed for meeting its own requirements,
preferably by establishment of direct
relationship between the factory and the
individuals who can grow the raw material
by supporting the individuals with inputs
including credit, constant technical advice
and finally harvesting and transport
services.
— No forest-based enterprise, except that
at the village or cottage level, should be
permitted in the future unless it has been
first cleared after a careful scrutiny with
regard to assured availability of raw
material. In any case, the fuel, fodder and
timber requirements of the local
population should not be sacrificed for
this purpose.
— Forest-based industries must not only
provide employment to local people on a
65

priority but also involve them fully in
raising trees and raw material.
— Natural forests serve as gene pool
resources and help to maintain ecological
balance. Such forests will not, therefore,
be made available to industries for
undertaking plantation and for any other
activities.
— Farmers, particularly small and
marginal farmers would be encouraged to
grow, on marginal/degraded lands
available with them, wood species
required for industries. These may also be
grown along with fuel and fodder species
on community lands not required for
pasture purposes, and by the Forest
Department/corporations on degraded
forests, not earmarked for natural
regeneration.
— The practice of supply of forest produce
to industry at concessional prices should
cease. Industry should be encouraged to
use alternative raw materials. Import of
wood and wood products should be
liberalised.
— The above considerations will, however,
be subject to the current policy relating to
land ceiling and land laws.
*
4.16. The objective of this revised policy cannot be
achieved without the investment of financial and
other resources on a substantial scale. Such
investment is indeed fully justified considering the
contribution of forests in maintaining essential
ecological processes and life support systems and in
preserving genetic diversity. Forest should not be
looked upon as a source of revenue. Forests are a
renewable natural resource. They are a national
asset to be protected and enhanced for the well-being
of the people and the nation.”
66

100. In the totality of circumstances, we find that the State
has been changing its stand time and again. Earlier, it had
clearly admitted that in 126 compartments which were
notified as the Saranda Game Sanctuary vide 1968
Notification, neither any kind of mining excavation operations
nor any diversion of Forest Land for mining purposes have
been undertaken except in part of the area approximately
measuring 4.31 hectares. Subsequently, the stand had been
changed wherein the State submitted that it is considering
declaration of area measuring 57,519.41 hectare as against
the original area measuring 31,468.25 hectare as a wildlife
sanctuary. This stand was, yet again, changed and finally the
State now proposes to notify only an area of 24,941.64 hectare
as wildlife sanctuary.
101. We see no reason as to why the entire area of 126
compartments notified under 1968 notification should not be
declared as wildlife sanctuary. However, taking into
consideration the MPSM which excluded compartment
numbers KP-2, KP-10, KP-11, KP-12, KP-13 and KP-14 as
either Mining Zone-I or Mining Zone-II, we are inclined to
67

permit the State to exclude the aforesaid six compartments
from the area to be notified as wildlife sanctuary.
IV. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

102.
In the result, we dispose of the present set of IAs in the
following terms:
(i) We direct that the State Government shall notify the
area comprising of 126 compartments as notified in
1968 notification, excluding six compartments i.e.,
compartment numbers KP-2, KP-10, KP-11, KP-12,
KP-13 and KP-14, as a wildlife sanctuary within a
period of three months from the date of this judgment.
(ii) We reiterate the directions issued by this Court vide
th 25
judgment and order dated 26 April 2023 passed in
the present proceedings which reads thus:
“ 60. Insofar as the restriction on mining is
concerned, we are of the considered view
that it has been the consistent view of this
Court that the mining activities within an
area of one kilometre of the boundary of the
Protected Areas will be hazardous for the
wildlife. Though in the case of Goa
Foundation (supra), the said directions were
issued in respect of State of Goa, we find
that such directions need to be issued on
Pan-India basis.

25
2023 SCC OnLine SC 504
68

xxxx xxxx xxxx
65. We also modify the direction contained
in paragraph 56.4 of the order dated
rd
3 June 2022 (supra) and direct that
mining within the National Park and
Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of
one kilometre from the boundary of such
National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary shall
not be permissible.”

(iii) We further direct the State of Jharkhand to give wide
publicity to the fact that by this judgment, neither the
individual rights nor the community rights of the
tribals and the forest dwellers in the said area would
be adversely affected. The State shall also give wide
publicity to the fact that in view of the provision of
Section 3 read with sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the
FRA all the rights of the tribals and the forest dwellers
both individually as well as of community shall stand
protected.
IA Diary No.272221 of 2025
103. The present IA is filed with the following prayers:

A. Direct that the declaration of the proposed
Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary covering 24,941.68
hectares and its 1 km Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ)
shall not in any manner impede, restrict, or
otherwise affect the operation, maintenance, and
functioning of the Applicant’s essential ancillary
infrastructure like Rangring tailing Dam, which
69

are indispensable for sustaining lawful mining
operations and township activities namely:
a. Kumbdi Water Dam and allied facilities
located partly in Compartments KP-15,
KD-10 and KD-16 as mentioned in
Paragraph 3 and detailed in Annexure-3 ,
and
b. Railway Take-up Point and railway lines
passing through Kiriburu-
Meghahatuburu mines Compartments
KP-21 as mentioned Paragraph 3 and
detailed in Annexure A-4 , and
B. to pass such other or further order or orders as
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice and equity.”

104. In the foregoing paragraphs, we have already held that
in view of the provisions contained in Sections 3 and 4 of the
FRA, the activities as prayed in the IA are permissible
activities. Even after the declaration of the area covered under
the 1968 Notification as a Wildlife Sanctuary, ancillary
activities as sought to be carried out by the Applicant-SAIL
would be continued to be permitted.
105. We, therefore, find that in view of the observations
made hereinabove, the grievance of the applicant-SAIL no
more survives. The IA is, therefore, disposed of in terms of the
observations made in this judgment.
70

106. Before we part with the Judgment, we would like to
place on record our deep and sincere appreciation for the
tireless efforts put in by Shri K. Parameshwar learned amicus
curiae, who has been ably assisted by Mr. M.V. Mukunda,
Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji Gururaj, Ms. Veda Singh, Mr. Shreenivas
Patil, Mr. Prasad Hegde, Mr. Sai Kaushal, learned counsel.
We would also like to place on record our appreciation for
Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the State of Jharkhand, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned
Solicitor General of India appearing for Steel Authority of India
Limited and Ms. Shibani Ghosh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Dr.
Dayanand Shankar Srivastava.

..............................CJI
(B.R. GAVAI)



............................................J
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)


NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 13, 2025.
71