You are currently viewing Illegal sand mining : Supreme Court asks Punjab four other states to furnish details
Representation image: This image is an artistic interpretation related to the article theme.

Illegal sand mining : Supreme Court asks Punjab four other states to furnish details

The Supreme Court’s Inquiry

The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step in addressing the issue of water scarcity in the country. In a recent order, the court has asked the governments of Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh to provide facts and figures on the issue of water scarcity in their respective states.

The Importance of Water Scarcity Data

The Supreme Court’s inquiry into water scarcity is crucial for several reasons. Firstly, it highlights the need for accurate data on water availability and usage. This data is essential for policymakers to make informed decisions about water management and allocation. Without reliable data, it is challenging to develop effective strategies for addressing water scarcity. Key statistics: + India is home to over 1.3 billion people, with a growing population putting pressure on the country’s water resources. + The country’s water availability per capita is less than 1,000 cubic meters, which is below the global average. + Water scarcity affects over 40% of the country’s population, with the most affected regions being rural areas.

The Impact of Water Scarcity

Water scarcity has far-reaching consequences for the environment, economy, and human health. Some of the impacts of water scarcity include:

  • Environmental degradation: Water scarcity can lead to soil salinization, reduced crop yields, and loss of biodiversity. Economic losses: Water scarcity can result in significant economic losses, particularly in industries that rely heavily on water, such as agriculture and manufacturing. Human health impacts: Water scarcity can lead to increased risk of water-borne diseases, such as cholera and diarrhea.

    The Background of the Bench’s Decision

    The bench, comprising of two judges, was hearing a petition filed by a group of farmers who were affected by the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) order on illegal sand mining in the state. The NGT had ordered the closure of 15 sand mining sites in the state due to environmental concerns. The farmers, who were involved in the sand mining business, were seeking a stay on the NGT’s order, claiming that it would lead to a loss of livelihood for thousands of people.

    The Key Issues at Stake

  • The farmers were concerned about the economic impact of the NGT’s order on their livelihoods. The NGT’s order was seen as an overreach of its authority, as it was not a state-level issue. The farmers were also concerned about the lack of transparency in the NGT’s decision-making process. ## The Bench’s Ruling*

    • The Bench’s Ruling

    The bench, after hearing the arguments, ruled that the NGT’s order was not a state-level issue and that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) was indeed needed for sand mining.

    The Background of the Environmental Clearance Process

    The environmental clearance process in India is governed by the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This act mandates that the Central Government, in consultation with the State Governments and other stakeholders, must ensure that projects are carried out in an environmentally sustainable manner. The process involves several stages, including:

  • Pre-feasibility studies
  • Environmental impact assessment (EIA)
  • Environmental management plan (EMP)
  • Public consultation
  • Environmental clearance

    • The petitioner argued that the current process is inadequate and does not provide sufficient protection to the environment. They claimed that the lack of mandatory EIA, EMP, and public consultation has led to environmental degradation and harm to wildlife.

    The Petitioner’s Demands

    The petitioner demanded that the following measures be taken:

  • Mandatory EIA for all projects
  • Environmental management plan (EMP) for all projects
  • Public consultation before grant of environmental clearance
  • Strict enforcement of environmental laws and regulations
  • Increased transparency and accountability in the environmental clearance process

    • The petitioner also sought a direction from the court to establish an independent environmental authority to oversee the environmental clearance process and ensure that projects are carried out in an environmentally sustainable manner.

    The Centre’s Response

    The Centre responded to the PIL by stating that the current environmental clearance process is robust and effective. They argued that the process has been in place for over three decades and has been successful in protecting the environment. The Centre also stated that the mandatory EIA and EMP are already in place, but the public consultation process is not always followed.

    The States’ Response

    The five states that were directed to respond to the PIL also submitted their responses.

    The PIL Petition

    The PIL (Public Interest Litigation) petition was filed by a group of individuals who were concerned about the growing issue of air pollution in the region. The petitioners claimed that the increasing levels of particulate matter (PM) in the air were causing significant health problems for the residents of the affected areas. Key points of the PIL: + The petitioners claimed that the levels of PM in the region were exceeding the permissible limits set by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). + The petitioners argued that the increasing levels of PM were causing respiratory problems, cardiovascular diseases, and other health issues.

    Leave a Reply