Supreme Court tells Jharkhand to notify Saranda sanctuary

THe sublime margaret court on th directed the Jharkhand regime to notify the Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary crosswise an area of over 31,000 hectares of forest land, while simultaneously reaffirming its earlier ruling that no mining shall be permitted within one kilometre of the boundary of any national park or wildlife sanctuary.A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran said the notification must be issued within three months, covering 31,468.25 hectares of pristine forest—home to some of the world’s finest Sal trees and a rich array of wildlife— in West Singhbhum district. It clarified that essential public infrastructure like schools, dispensaries, and road and rail lines would remain protected, and directed the state to publicise this fact to allay fears among tribal and forest-dwelling communities.The order makes Saranda the first sanctuary in India to be notified on the direction of the Supreme Court. The bench relied on a 1968 Bihar government notification declaring the area as Saranda Game Sanctuary under the then Bihar Forest, Hunting, Shooting and Fishing Rules, 1958.The court excluded six forest compartments from the sanctuary’s limits for mining, but made it clear that no mining activity can take place in the remaining area or within the one-kilometre eco-sensitive zone around it, reiterating its April 2023 judgment in the batch of TN Godavarman cases. In that ruling, the court had held that mining “within a national park or wildlife sanctuary and within one kilometre from its boundary shall not be permissible,” expanding what was then a Goa-specific restriction to the entire country.After pronouncing the judgment, CJI Gavai observed in court: “This is perhaps the first instance when a sanctuary has been notified by the court.”The judgment was delivered in the long-running Godavarman forest conservation case, following an application by Jharkhand resident Daya Shankar Srivastava, who alleged rampant mining in the ecologically fragile Saranda region despite a July 2022 National Green Tribunal direction to declare it a sanctuary.The case saw repeated shifts in the Jharkhand government’s position. In December 2024, it proposed declaring over 57,000 hectares as a sanctuary. By October this year, it reduced the figure to 24,941 hectares, citing potential impact on tribals and forest villagers.The bench took a dim view of this vacillation, dismissing the claim of tribal displacement as a “figment of the state’s imagination.” Authoring the judgment, CJI Gavai said: “The main opposition of the state is on the ground that the rights of tribals and traditional forest dwellers would be adversely affected. We find that the said contention is absolutely without substance.”Citing Section 3 of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and Section 24 of the Wildlife Protection Act, the court noted that both individual and community rights, relating to habitat, habitation, conversion of leases, and in-situ rehabilitation, are protected even after declaration of a sanctuary. It directed the state to widely publicise these provisions and reassure residents that their rights would not be harmed.The court’s order came despite opposition from both the Jharkhand government and Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), a central public sector undertaking (PSU). Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for SAIL, said nearly half of the PSU’s captive iron ore supply came from Jharkhand and that its railway infrastructure lay within the 1-km eco-sensitive zone.Senior advocate K Parmeshwar, assisting the court as amicus curiae, alleged that the state was attempting to shield the mining lobby, citing findings of the Justice MB Shah Commission (2013) on illegal iron and manganese mining in the eastern state. The commission had warned that large-scale mining posed “dangerous effects” on the ecosystem and destroyed forests that had evolved over millions of years for mines with a life of barely a decade. It had also identified alternative mineral deposits on Jharkhand’s eastern border with Odisha that could be developed sustainably.Rejecting the state’s arguments, the bench said Jharkhand could not “run away” from its constitutional duty to protect forests and wildlife. The Wildlife Institute of India (WII) report on Saranda, placed before the court, described it as a vital corridor for species like the Asiatic elephant, Chousingha (four-horned antelope), mouse deer, and sloth bear.Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Jharkhand, sought exclusion of several compartments for mining, but the court restricted this to six, consistent with the Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) for the region.