Document 5d2e13c2-8747-4253-a87a-3fa5406fbf1f

2026 INSC 1203
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 8 OF 2025

IN RE: 2 MILLION LIVES AT RISK,
CONTAMINATION IN JOJARI RIVER,
RAJASTHAN

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5517-5519 OF 2022

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8748 OF 2022

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9057-9058 OF 2022

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9010-9011 OF 2022

O R D E R

1. The present proceedings concern the continuing
degradation of the Jojari-Bandi-Luni river ecosystem
and the need for coordinated, effective and time-
bound measures for its restoration and protection.
th
By order dated 29 September, 2026, this Court,
upon consideration of the reports and
recommendations of the High-Level Ecosystem
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SHIPRA NARANG
Date: 2026.11.06
16:33:00 IST
Reason:
1

1
Oversight Committee , the status reports filed by the
State of Rajasthan and the submissions advanced on
behalf of the respective parties, took note of the
continuing sources of pollution, deficiencies in
pollution-control infrastructure and gaps in
enforcement. This Court observed that,
notwithstanding the directions issued from time to
time, several concerns remained unaddressed and
that a proactive and preventive mechanism was
necessary to secure the effective restoration of the
river ecosystem.
2. Accordingly, this Court issued directions
concerning, inter alia , the removal of unauthorised
discharge points, enforcement against illegal
industrial activities and mining, review of the
guidelines governing captive Effluent Treatment
Plants, augmentation of effluent treatment
infrastructure, protection of the natural flow of the
rivers and completion of remediation measures. The
State was also directed to coordinate with the
Committee, finalise a Comprehensive Resolution Plan
with specific timelines and measurable milestones,

1
Hereinafter, being referred to as “Committee”.
2

and assess the feasibility of relocating polluting
industrial areas situated close to the river systems.
th
The matter was directed to be listed on 26 October,
2026.
3.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Committee
has forwarded a Note placing on record its
observations and recommendations in respect of the
issues requiring further consideration and
appropriate directions. The State of Rajasthan has
also filed a compliance affidavit setting out the steps
taken pursuant to the directions issued by this
Court.
4. The Committee, in its Note, has raised serious
concerns regarding the proposed redetermination of
the edges and widths of the rivers Jojari, Bandi and
Luni by the Water Resources Department on the
basis of the estimated flow of sewage and treated
th
wastewater. In its communication dated 7 October,
2026, the Department sought to justify this exercise
by relying upon the proceedings before this Court on
nd
22 September, 2026. The Committee, however,
nd
upon examining the order dated 22 September,
2026, observed that no such direction had been
issued by this Court to treat sewage or treated
3

wastewater as the basis for determining the
geographical boundaries or widths of the rivers. It
has, therefore, cautioned that the Department has
misconstrued the directions of this Court, thereby
risking the attribution to this Court of a position that
it has neither directed nor endorsed. The Committee
has further observed that the existing river corridors
and their recorded widths are reflected in the records
maintained by the Revenue Department and the
Water Resources Department, and that no
demonstrated necessity exists for undertaking an
exercise which may displace the recorded river
corridors by reference to the volume of sewage flowing
through particular stretches.
5. The Committee has illustrated the
consequences of the proposed methodology by
referring to two specific locations along the Luni River
in District Balotra. At Bhituja, the recorded width of
the river is approximately 1,172 metres, whereas at
Ajit, the recorded width is approximately 794 metres.
The Committee has cautioned that reducing the
width at these locations to merely about eight metres,
on the basis of a totally flawed engineering
assessment of sewage or treated wastewater flow,
4

would effectively reduce the river to a narrow channel
carrying sewage and effluent, disregarding its
recorded geographical extent and natural
characteristics. Such an exercise, in the Committee’s
view, would defeat the object of the directions issued
by this Court for the preservation, protection and
restoration of the river ecosystem.
6. The Committee has, accordingly, recommended
that the State Government be directed to preserve the
entire river corridors of the Luni, Jojari and Bandi
rivers, together with their tributaries and
distributaries, in accordance with the boundaries
recorded by the Revenue Department and the Water
Resources Department, whichever reflects the greater
extent. It has further recommended the maintenance
of an additional protective zone of 100 metres on
either side of the recorded outer boundaries and a
prohibition on red-category industries within 500
metres thereof.
7. The Committee has further highlighted that the
preparation of a comprehensive blueprint for the
entire Luni River System, including its tributaries
and distributaries, remains incomplete despite the
passage of considerable time. It has emphasised that
5

a consolidated, scientifically grounded blueprint is
essential for coordinated restoration and
rejuvenation of the river system. The Committee has,
therefore, recommended that the outstanding
district-wise blueprints be furnished expeditiously
and consolidated into a comprehensive
blueprint/plan of the entire river ecosystem
specifying location-wise restoration measures, the
authorities responsible for their implementation and
definite timelines.
8. The Committee has expressed serious concern
over indiscriminate and unscientific bajri mining
across the Luni-Jojari-Bandi river system and its
tributaries, observing extensive excavation across
substantial stretches of riverbeds and, at certain
locations, practically their entire width, threatening
natural flow paths, sediment movement,
groundwater recharge and ecological balance. It has
particularly highlighted five contiguous mining plots
at Village Kanana, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Balotra,
spanning 458.6 hectares and approximately 8.1
kilometres of riverbed. Mining has commenced in
Plots Nos. 201, 203 and 204, while Letters of Intent
for the remaining two plots bearing Nos. 202 and 205,
6

have been accepted, though environmental clearance
is still pending. Noting that the cumulative ecological
impact cannot be assessed by examining individual
leases in isolation, the Committee has recommended
reconsideration of existing leases, wherever
necessary, to preserve undisturbed stretches, and
that environmental clearance for the two pending
plots be withheld.
9. The Committee has further expressed concern
that illegal mining continues at several locations
despite the availability of information regarding such
activities and the existence of an established
statutory enforcement framework. It has noted that
the persistence of these activities, notwithstanding
the directions issued by this Court in earlier
proceedings, raises serious questions regarding the
effectiveness of field surveillance and enforcement.
The Committee has also pointed to the failure to
furnish complete information regarding permitted
and illegal mining areas, leases, permissible
extraction quantities, mining depth, replenishment
and restoration obligations, thereby impeding a
comprehensive assessment of the damage caused.
7

10. The Committee has, therefore, recommended
immediate action against illegal mining, including
seizure of machinery and vehicles and initiation of
appropriate penal and recovery proceedings; strict
verification of ongoing operations against approved
mining plans; and scientific assessment of
replenishment before fresh extraction is permitted in
previously excavated stretches. It has also called for
an independent investigation by a Special
Investigation Team into organised illegal mining, the
networks and beneficiaries involved, and any
complicity or dereliction of duty by public officials. An
accessible grievance-redressal mechanism
permitting anonymous complaints, protecting the
confidentiality of complainants and ensuring
independent verification and time-bound action has
likewise been recommended.
11. The Committee has expressed concern over the
inadequate progress in establishing and augmenting
2
Common Effluent Treatment Plants and Zero Liquid
3
Discharge facilities in the Jodhpur, Pali and Balotra
industrial clusters. It has observed that

2
For short, “CETPs”.
3
For short, “ZLD”.
8

administrative assurances and projected completion
dates cannot be a substitute for treatment capacity
commensurate with the volume of industrial effluent
generated. While acknowledging the proposed 4 MLD
ZLD facility at Jodhpur as an immediate remedial
measure, the Committee has emphasised that it
cannot, by itself, fulfil the larger obligation of
achieving complete ZLD. It has accordingly
recommended, and that the CETP Trust, the
4
Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the
State Government ensure, in a time-bound manner,
100% ZLD compliance at CETP, Sangaria, Jodhpur.
The Committee has further stressed the need for
effective monitoring of all CETP/ZLD projects,
periodic reporting of physical progress and
accountability for delays, so as to ensure the timely
creation of adequate treatment capacity.
12. We have heard Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional
Solicitor General and Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma,
learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the State of Rajasthan; Mr. Rishabh Sancheti,

4
For short, “RSPCB”.
9

learned counsel appearing for the applicants; and Mr.
Digvijay Singh Jasol, appearing in person.
th
13. At the hearing on 26 October, 2026, Mr. S.V.
Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
for the State of Rajasthan, fairly submitted that the
exercise undertaken by the Water Resources
Department for redetermination of the river widths
on the basis of sewage and treated wastewater flow
was misconceived and could not be sustained. He
further submitted that the State was willing to refrain
from granting permissions for the establishment of
new industries until the High Flood Line and the
buffer zones are lawfully determined, having regard
to the records maintained by the Revenue
Department and the Water Resources Department.
14. Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, learned counsel
appearing for the applicant, namely, Jodhpur
Pollution Control and Research Foundation, in
Interlocutory Application Nos. 299204 of 2026
(Application for Directions) and 299206 of 2026
(Application for Intervention), submitted that,
th
pursuant to the order dated 29 September, 2026,
the applicant had placed its proposal for the 4 MLD
ZLD project before the Committee, which had
10

recommended that the project be implemented and
commissioned strictly within the committed
timelines, without any further relaxation. He
submitted that the proposal is now required to be
placed before the State Government for approval, and
that execution of the project can commence only
thereafter. Learned counsel submitted that the
applicant is willing to undertake the project subject
to compliance with all applicable environmental
norms, consent conditions, technical requirements
and other statutory obligations. He accordingly
sought permission to place the proposal before the
State Government and requested that the State be
directed to consider the same, including the request
for financial assistance towards establishing ZLD
plants and creating the requisite infrastructure,
including redistribution pipelines for conveying RO
permeate to the designated points of reuse. He
submitted that the State Government may take an
expeditious decision upon undertaking the necessary
technical appraisal and statutory checks.
15. Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, appearing in person,
referred to the Note circulated by him and raised
concerns regarding the precarious groundwater
11

situation in the Balotra region. He submitted that the
Balotra block, comprising Balotra, Bithuja and Jasol,
has been classified as a Dark Zone/Over-Exploited
Area since the 1990s, having regard to groundwater
extraction vis-à-vis recharge as per the standards of
the Central Ground Water Authority. Referring to the
5
findings recorded by the National Green Tribunal in
th
its order dated 9 July, 2015, he submitted that
groundwater extraction for commercial and
industrial purposes has been prohibited in such
areas. He contended that permitting extraction for
industrial activities, when groundwater resources
were already severely depleted, posed a grave threat
to the region’s water security and ecology.
16. Mr. Jasol further submitted that, during a
meeting with Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional
Solicitor General, and the concerned officials, it was
indicated that a certain quantity of groundwater
extraction was permitted for small industries.
According to him, such permissions would further
aggravate the depletion of groundwater in the Balotra
district. He also drew attention of this Court to the

5
For short, “NGT”.
12

findings of the National Productivity Council report,
which had highlighted extensive groundwater
contamination in Balotra and Pali and the need for
further hydrological studies to assess its spread and
formulate a comprehensive remediation plan. He
further highlighted that the State Government had
not meaningfully addressed the findings of the report
and questioned the basis for revoking, in 2011, the
moratorium on the establishment of polluting textile
industries.
17. Mr. Jasol also raised concerns regarding the
proposed textile park at Newai at a distance of about
30 Kms from Balotra and the functioning of
approximately 135 Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP)
units in the Balotra block, submitting that only a
handful were operating in accordance with ZLD
norms. He contended that the scattered location of
these units impeded effective regulatory monitoring
and enabled the discharge of untreated effluent into
drains or through tankers. He accordingly sought a
moratorium on the establishment of new textile
industries in the over-exploited Balotra block,
detailed inspections of the existing ETP units, and
further assessment of groundwater contamination
13

and the consequential agricultural losses. He
emphasised that the State of Rajasthan has not filed
any response to the Note circulated by him and
submitted that, having regard to the seriousness of
the issues raised therein, the State ought to be called
upon to file its response.
18. We have perused and considered the
compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the State of
Rajasthan. The affidavit indicates that certain steps
have been taken by the State authorities in
furtherance of the directions issued by this Court,
including the constitution of district-level vigilance
teams, initiation of enforcement action against illegal
industrial units, and measures for assessment and
recovery of environmental compensation. However, a
substantial number of the initiatives contemplated
under the directions of this Court are still stated to
be under consideration at the level of the State
Government or the concerned departments. The
initiation of administrative processes, by itself,
cannot be treated as fulfilment of the directions
issued by this Court. What is required is their
effective implementation on the ground, within
definite timelines and under clearly identified
14

institutional responsibility. Given the urgency and
gravity of the environmental concerns involved, the
State cannot be permitted to allow bureaucratic
delays to impede or frustrate the implementation of
the directions issued by this Court.
19. One particularly concerning aspect emerging
from the compliance affidavit relates to the position
taken by the Department of Mines and Geology
regarding illegal gravel mining in the Luni, Jojari and
Bandi rivers and the tributaries of the Luni River. The
State has reported that, in several areas where illegal
gravel mining had previously been detected, mining
leases have subsequently been granted in accordance
with the prescribed procedure, and that mining
operations in such areas are now being undertaken
in a regulated and sustainable manner. The affidavit
further states that instances of illegal mining are
presently being detected only in isolated areas,
against which enforcement action is being taken.
20. The aforesaid position gives rise to a serious
concern. The fact that mining leases may have
subsequently been granted in accordance with the
prescribed procedure does not, by itself, answer the
question whether the grant of such leases is
15

environmentally sustainable or consistent with the
need to preserve and restore the natural course,
riverbed and ecological integrity of the river systems.
Where illegal mining has previously been detected,
the subsequent grant of a lease over the same area
cannot be treated as sufficient to dispel the concerns
arising from the earlier activity, without an
independent and scientifically informed assessment
of the cumulative environmental impact.
21. The explanation furnished by the State, if
accepted without further scrutiny, would risk
reducing the problem of illegal mining to one of post
facto regularisation and sanctioning of activities that
were otherwise illegal, thereby lending legitimacy to
such mining operations. Compliance with the
prescribed procedure for grant of a mining lease and
compliance with the environmental safeguards
governing the actual conduct of mining are distinct
requirements. The former cannot be a substitute for
the latter. It is, therefore, necessary to ascertain
whether the areas subsequently brought under
mining leases were assessed with due regard to the
natural flow of the rivers, the integrity of their beds
and banks, replenishment capacity, groundwater
16

recharge and the cumulative impact of mining across
contiguous stretches.
22. We deprecate the apparent attempt on the part
of the Mining Department of the State of Rajasthan
to legitimise illegal mining activities being carried out
in the riverbeds by subsequently granting mining
leases, rather than taking appropriate action against
those responsible. We shall consider directing
appropriate action against the officers found
responsible for permitting or facilitating such
activities.
23. The State cannot discharge its obligation to
protect the river systems merely by reporting the
number of cases detected, FIRs registered, penalties
recovered or leases granted. The relevant
consideration is whether the measures adopted are
capable of preventing further degradation and
securing the restoration of the affected areas. The
concerns raised by Mr. Jasol regarding groundwater
depletion, the operation of industrial units and the
possible consequences for agriculture also
underscore the need for a coordinated assessment of
the relationship between mining, industrial pollution
and the ecological condition of the river systems.
17

24. In the light of the foregoing, the following
directions are issued to address the concerns arising
from the note forwarded by the Committee and to
ensure effective protection and restoration of the river
systems: -
A. In view of the submission made by Mr. S.V. Raju,
learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
the State of Rajasthan, we hereby restraint the
State from granting any further permission for the
establishment of new industrial units along or in
the vicinity of the riverine ecosystem until the High
Flood Line and the buffer zones are scientifically
determined, having due regard to the records
maintained by the Revenue Department and the
Water Resources Department. In addition to the
foregoing, an additional protective zone of 100
metres shall be maintained on either side of the
respective recorded outer boundaries of the rivers.
No Red Category industry shall be permitted to be
established within a distance of 500 metres from
the said recorded outer boundaries.
B. The State of Rajasthan shall constitute a Special
Investigation Team (SIT) within three days from the
date of receipt of this Order. The SIT shall be
18

headed by an officer not below the rank of
Inspector General of Police and shall include, inter
alia , the Superintendents of Police of Jodhpur,
Balotra and Pali. The SIT shall undertake a
comprehensive investigation into organised illegal
bajri mining activities affecting the Luni, Jojari and
Bandi rivers and their tributaries. The
investigation shall extend to identifying the
persons and entities involved in such activities, the
networks through which the illegal extraction,
transportation and sale of bajri are organised, and
the beneficiaries of such operations. The SIT shall
also examine the role, if any, of public officials in
facilitating or enabling such activities, including
instances of collusion, dereliction of duty or failure
to take action despite knowledge of the violations.
Upon completion of the investigation, appropriate
action shall be initiated against all persons found
responsible, in accordance with law.
C. The SIT shall file a status report before this Court
on or before the next date of hearing, indicating the
progress made in the investigation and the steps
taken pursuant to the directions issued herein.
19

D. The State of Rajasthan shall file a separate
affidavit specifically addressing the issues and
concerns raised by Mr. Jasol in the Note submitted
by him. The affidavit shall respond to the matters
raised therein and set out the action taken, or
proposed to be taken, by the concerned
authorities.
E. The Registry shall implead the Central Ground
Water Authority (CGWA) as a party to the present
proceedings within one week from the receipt of
this Order. Upon being impleaded, the CGWA shall
file an affidavit setting out the status of
groundwater availability, extraction and depletion
in the districts of Jodhpur, Balotra and Pali, along
with its assessment of the prevailing groundwater
situation in these districts.
F. The Integrated Public Reporting and
Environmental Grievance Redressal Mechanism,
directed to be established by this Court vide order
th
dated 7 August, 2026, shall specifically
incorporate a facility for the submission of
anonymised complaints concerning illegal bajri
mining and other unlawful activities affecting the
riverine ecosystem. The mechanism shall provide
20

for the appropriate recording, examination and
referral of such complaints to the competent
authorities for necessary action in accordance with
law.
G.
The State of Rajasthan shall formulate a
comprehensive policy for extending financial
assistance to industrial units desirous of
establishing ZLD plants. Pending formulation of
such policy, the State shall duly consider
applications seeking financial assistance for the
establishment of ZLD plants and the associated
pipeline network on a case-to-case basis, upon due
technical appraisal and verification, and take an
appropriate decision expeditiously.
H. The State of Rajasthan shall take necessary steps
to establish an appropriate redistribution pipeline
network for the conveyance and reuse of treated
wastewater and RO permeate, so as to facilitate its
optimum utilisation by industrial units and
minimise the discharge of effluents into the river
systems. The State shall examine the technical
and financial requirements for establishing such a
network and prepare a time-bound plan for its
implementation.
21

25. Having regard to the complex and multifaceted
nature of the issues involved in the present
proceedings, we deem it appropriate to appoint Mr.
Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.
Namit Saxena, learned Advocate-on-Record, as Amici
Curiae to assist this Court in the effective
consideration and resolution of the issues arising
herein.
26. The Registry shall forward a copy of this order
to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sangeet Lodha, Judge (Retd.),
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan on his email
address: [email protected] , as well as to Mr.
Shiv Mangal Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State of Rajasthan; Mr.
Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel; and Mr. Namit
Saxena, learned Advocate-on-Record.
th
27. List the matters again on 27 November, 2026
as part-heard.
Interlocutory Application Nos. 324760 (For
Intervention) & 324761 (For Directions) filed on
behalf of Bherawa Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd.
28. Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, learned counsel
appearing for the applicant, Bherawa Textile
Industries Pvt. Ltd., submitted that the present
22

application seeks a limited clarification regarding the
th th
effect of the orders dated 18 March, 2026 and 29
May, 2026 passed by this Court in the present
proceedings. He submitted that the applicant’s
st
Consent to Operate, valid until 31 January, 2030,
th
was revoked by RSPCB by order dated 18 August,
2026, and the applicant’s unit was directed to be
closed. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant had invoked
the statutory appellate remedy under Section 16(c) of
the NGT Act, 2010, by filing an appeal bearing No. 14
th
of 2026 (CZ) before the NGT on 24 August, 2026.
However, upon the RSPCB relying upon the aforesaid
th
orders of this Court, the NGT, by order dated 28
September, 2026, directed that the proceedings
would be governed by the orders passed by this
Court. The applicant thereafter withdrew its appeal
th
on 5 October, 2026, without adjudication on merits.
29. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned
th
order of the RSPCB dated 18 August, 2026
constitutes a subsequent and independent
regulatory action, the legality of which has not been
examined on merits. He contended that the orders
passed by this Court in the present proceedings
ought not to be construed as extinguishing the
23

statutory appellate jurisdiction of the NGT to examine
the validity of such action. Emphasizing that the
applicant does not seek permission to resume
operations in derogation of the directions issued by
this Court, he submitted that the issues concerning
the legality of the closure order are distinct from the
question of resumption of operations and involve
factual and technical matters best left to be examined
by the NGT in the first instance. He accordingly
th
prayed for a clarification that the orders dated 18
th
March, 2026 and 29 May, 2026 do not, by
themselves, preclude the NGT from exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 16(c) of the NGT Act, and
sought restoration of the applicant’s earlier appeal or,
in the alternative, liberty to institute a fresh appeal
with appropriate protection in respect of limitation.
th
30. It is apposite to note that by orders dated 18
th
March, 2026 and 29 May, 2026, this Court had cast
an obligation upon the concerned authorities of the
State of Rajasthan and the RSPCB to take
appropriate enforcement action against industrial
units operating in violation of statutory
requirements, the conditions stipulated in their
Consent to Operate, or the prescribed environmental
24

standards. The directions were intended to ensure
strict compliance with the applicable environmental
norms and to prevent the continued operation of
units found to be in breach thereof.
31.
This Court had further directed that industries
ordered to remain closed pursuant to the action
taken by the State of Rajasthan and the RSPCB shall
not be permitted to resume operations except with
the prior leave and express permission of this Court.
These directions were intended to ensure that no
industrial unit resumes operations without satisfying
the requisite environmental standards and obtaining
the express permission of this Court. They must,
however, be understood in the context of their object
and scope, namely, the enforcement of environmental
safeguards and the regulation of the resumption of
operations by industrial units.
32. The aforesaid directions cannot be construed as
excluding or extinguishing the statutory appellate
jurisdiction vested in the NGT under the NGT Act,
2010 to examine the legality and sustainability of an
independent regulatory order passed by the RSPCB.
The adjudication of a challenge to the legality of such
an order is distinct from the grant of permission to
25

resume operations. The exercise of appellate
jurisdiction by the NGT, in accordance with law,
would not, by itself, dilute or circumvent the binding
directions issued by this Court, nor would it entitle
an industrial unit to resume operations contrary to
those directions.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, the
interlocutory applications filed by the applicant,
namely, Bherawa Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. are
disposed of with liberty to the applicant to approach
the NGT by filing an appropriate application seeking
restoration of Appeal No. 14 of 2026 (CZ), which was
th
withdrawn on 5 October, 2026, without
adjudication on merits. In the event such an
application is filed, the NGT shall consider and
dispose of the same on its own merits, in accordance
with law and in the light of the observations made
hereinabove.

…….…………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)

...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 26, 2026.
26

27