M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 998 · Decided: 08-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 9 S.C.R. 998 
-· 
--t 
A 
M.C. MEHTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
I.A. No. 1967 In I.A. No. 1785 
In 
B 
Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985 
MAY 08, 2009 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND 
S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
c 
Environmental Law: 
Ecology - Protection of, vis-a-vis mining activities -
Mining activities in Aravalli Hills Range - Held : All mining 
D operations in Aravalli Hills range falling within the State of 
Haryana in the Districts of Faridabad and Gurgaon including 
~ 
Mawat are suspended till Reclamation Plan duly certified by 
State of Haryana MOEF and CEC is prepared in accordance 
with statutory provisions as well as in terms of the Rules and 
E the Guidelines framed thereunder - /As relating to major 
minerals disposed of -
/As relating to minor minerals 
adjourned - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Mines and 
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Mineral 
t 
Conservation and Development Rules, 1988-rr.34 and 37. 
~ 
F 
Environmental Law: 
Sustainable Development - Precautionary Principle -
Concepts of 'balancing' and 'banning' -
Explained -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 21, 48-A and 51-A(g). 
G 
The Aravallis are amongst the oldest geological 
~-
formations in the world. Due to its geological location, 
desertification is stopped and it prevents expansion of 
the desert into Delhi. At the same time, the Aravalli Hills 
range being rich in minerals, it has been the site of 
H 
998 
1--
..,, .. 
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
999 
extensive mining activities. Keeping in view ecological 
A 
importance of Aravalli Hills range, the Government of India 
in exercise of its powers u/s 31(iv) of the Environment 
(Protection) Act, 1986 issued notification dated 7.5.1992 
regulating the mining activities in the region with a view 
to strictly implement the measures to protect the ecology 
B 
of the Arravallis. By Notification dated 29.11.1999 powers 
vested in Central Government in terms of Notification 
dated 7.5.1992 were delegated to State Governments of 
Rajasthan and Haryana. But the delegation in favour of 
the States stood withdrawn. It was found that most of the c 
mines were operating in violation of approved plans, 
destroying the ground water table as also causing 
irreparable damage to critical groundwater reserves, and 
rendering reclamation of mined area impossible. By 
orders dated 29/30.10.2002, the Supreme Court 0 
prohibited and banned all mining activities in the entire 
Aravalli Hills. However, on 16.12.2002 the Court permitted 
mining in forest areas where specific prior approval u/s 
2 of the Forest (Conservations) Act, 1986 was accorded. 
From time to time the Court was trying to balance mining 
activity on the one hand with protection of environment 
E 
on the other. However, the mining operations were being 
carried out on a disproportionate scale in the Aravalli Hills 
mainly in Gurgaon and Faridabad districts including 
Mewat in the State of Haryana. 
Disposing of IAs. No. 1976 and 2186 in I.A. No. 1785 
in Writ Petition (C) No4677/1985 and I.A. No. 1465 in Writ 
Petition (C) No.202/1995 and other IAs. opposing 
imposition of ban on mining of major minerals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. After taking a macro view based on the 
satellite images, which indicate devastation caused to the 
area by mining operations, this matter needs to be looked 
F 
G 
at holistically. This exercise is not project-specific. 
Moreover, the applicants might have obtained clearances 
H 
1000 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. 
A for their projects as of date but in the past they have 
carried out mining operations, which according to the 
amicus curiae, has been done without complying with the 
aspect of Rehabilitation. In this connection, it is important 
to note that in 
ra 18 of the judgment in M. C. Mehta 
B case*, this Court etected the mining operation at 
different sites in the area 
ithout requisite clearances and 
without environmental management plan. Number of 
sites have been excavated in the past without clearances, 
~hich is indicated ·in para 18 of the said judgment. It is 
c on account of absence of remedial measures qua those -
sites that today environment and ecology which are' 
national assets and which are governed by inter-
generational equities s.tand devastated ·and Which leaves 
no option to the Cc;mrt but to ban the mining operations 
0 till remedial mea~u.re!.! are taken and duly certified by the 
various comp@~i!~t ~uthorities which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.