Supreme Court Directs Jharkhand Government To Declare Saranda AS Wildlife Sanctuary; All Rights Of Tribals And Forest Dwellers Shall Stand Protected
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran directed the State government to notify a defined portion of the Saranda forest as a wildlife sanctuary within three months, excluding specified compartments earmarked as mining zones. The Court maintained its earlier pan-India direction that mining is not permissible inside national parks and wildlife sanctuaries and within one kilometre of their boundaries. The Court further required the State to publicly state that this declaration will not diminish the individual or community forest rights of tribals and other forest dwellers in the area. The Bench considered these directions in applications alleging that, despite earlier assurances given to the Court, the State had repeatedly failed to issue the contemplated notification.
The proceedings arise from interlocutory applications in a long-running environmental matter concerning the Saranda forest area in the State of Jharkhand, described by the Court as one of the most pristine Sal forests in the world. The core area in issue measures 31,468.25 hectares, which had already been notified as a Game Sanctuary in 1968. Affidavits by the Divisional Forest Officer stated that this notified area comprises 126 compartments where no mining excavation or diversion of forest land for mining has taken place, except for about 4.31 hectares diverted in two compartments for a road connected to an iron ore mine, and that there are no operational mines within these compartments.
An applicant moved the Court seeking implementation of earlier directions requiring the State to consider declaring Saranda and neighbouring Sasangdaburu forests as a wildlife sanctuary and conservation reserve, based on a map prepared by the Wildlife Institute of India. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State of Jharkhand, informed the Bench that a proposal and draft notification had been prepared for declaration of a substantially larger area as a wildlife sanctuary and conservation reserve, but the State later constituted a committee to reconsider the extent of the proposed sanctuary, citing concerns about local habitations, livelihoods, socio-cultural impacts, mining and security.
The amicus curiae, Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, explained the ecological significance of the area, the pattern of mining leases around it and the statutory duty of the State to secure legal protection under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, while pointing out that the rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers are recognised and protected under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The applicant’s submissions also highlighted that intensive mining activities in the surrounding region had severely affected the Koina river system.
Steel Authority of India Ltd., represented by the Solicitor General, intervened to seek clarification that declaration of the Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary and its eco-sensitive zone should not impede specified ancillary infrastructure linked to its existing iron ore mining leases. In this factual and legal backdrop, the Court examined the affidavits, committee report, maps and other material placed on record against the framework of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and the Forest Rights Act.
In this backdrop, the Court examined affidavits, committee reports, maps and other material placed on record, alongside the statutory framework under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and relevant national policies and precedents.
The Court noted the ecological importance of the area, referring to the Saranda forests as “one of the most pristine Sal forests in the world.”
On the State’s changing position regarding the extent of protection, the Court recorded: “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.”
Having examined the material and earlier affidavits, the Court then stated its conclusion on the area to be protected and the exclusion of certain compartments: “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 permit the State to exclude the aforesaid six compartments from the area to be notified as wildlife sanctuary.”
In relation to the rights of tribals and traditional forest dwellers, the Court referred to the statutory framework and held: “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.” It then addressed the objections raised by the State in strong terms: “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.”
On the issue of mining and related activities, the Court reiterated its earlier direction 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.” At the same time, while dealing with the application by the public sector mining company, the Court clarified that “ancillary activities as sought to be carried out by the Applicant-SAIL would be continued to be permitted.”
The Court disposed of the interlocutory applications by directing 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.”
“We, therefore, reiterate 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.”
“We direct the State Government to give wide publicity clarifying that neither the individual rights nor the community rights of the tribals and the forest dwellers in the area which is directed to be declared as a wildlife sanctuary as well as the areas adjoining thereto shall be in any manner affected in view of the provisions of Section 24(2)(c) of the WPA and Sections 3 and 4 of the FRA and that all the rights of the tribals and the forest dwellers both individually as well as of community shall stand protected.”
“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.”
The IA is, therefore, disposed of in terms of the observations made in this judgment.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
Amicus Curiae: Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv., with Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Adv., Ms. Kanti, Adv., Ms. Raji Gururaj, Adv., Ms. Veda Singh, Adv., Mr. Shreenivas Patil, Adv., Mr. Prasad Hegde, Adv., and Mr. Sai Kaushal, Adv.
For the Petitioners: Ms. Shibani Ghosh, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv., and Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR.
For State of Jharkhand: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv., Mr. Ashish Jha, Adv., Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv., and Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv.
For Steel Authority of India: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR, Ms. Aakriti Goel, Adv., Ms. Kriti Jain, Adv., and Ms. Kamana Divya Sree, Adv.
Case Title: In Re: Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1311
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995, I.A. No. 153500 of 2024 and connected I.As.
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
