Tag: mining

Introduction

India is one of the top producers of valuable minerals like chromite, iron ore, coal, and bauxite on a global scale. In the quarter from 2019 to 2020, mining contributed 2% to the nation’s gross value added (GVA). This industry supplies the fundamental raw materials used by the majority of the nation’s infrastructure and manufacturing sectors. In India, the mining industry is heavily regulated, and in the last five years, the legal system has undergone significant modifications that have made the system more effective and transparent.

The Legal System

According to the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, the central government and the individual State governments are each assigned a portion of the regulatory authority over the country’s mines and minerals industry, which is governed under a federal system. For the governance of the mining industry in India, both the federal government and the state governments are accountable.

To the extent that such control is deemed by the Parliament to be in the public interest, the central government has the authority to regulate mines and mineral development under entry 54 of the Union List. Under entry 23 of the State List, the State government has the authority to control mines and mineral development in conformity with the authority of the Central Government.

The primary law controlling the mineral sector in India (aside from petroleum and natural gas) was created by the central government in 1957 and is known as the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act). The MMDR Act establishes the legal framework for the development of all minerals and the control of mines. Minor minerals and significant minerals are the two categories of minerals. Building stones, common clay, common sand, gravel, and other minerals designated as minor minerals by the federal government are included in the category of minor minerals. Major minerals include coal, manganese ore, iron ore, other minerals utilized in industry, and minerals that cannot be classified as minor minerals.

Significant reforms were made to ensure a transparent and non-discretionary environment for the grant of mineral concessions with the introduction of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act 2015. The Act was changed further, mining leases that are issued in other ways than through auction and are utilized for captive consumption were able to be transferred as of the 2016 amendment. In order to maintain mining operations, the 2020 Amendment permitted the transfer of licenses, approvals, and clearances (including environmental and forestry clearances) from the previous licensee to the new licensee for a two-year term following the issuance of the new lease.

Regulatory bodies

• State governments: In accordance with the MMDR Act’s requirements, each State government has the authority to grant mineral concessions and to levy royalties, dead rent, and taxes on behalf of its residents.
• Mines Ministry (MoM): It is a division of the Indian government and serves as the main administrative body for the mining industry. It is responsible for the MMDR Act’s administration, the exploration and mining of all minerals (apart from coal, natural gas, and petroleum), and the metallurgy and mining of non-ferrous metals.
• The mission of the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), a division of the Ministry of Mines, is to advance the methodical and scientific use of India’s natural resources while maintaining environmental protection.
• The Ministry of Coal (MoC) is in charge of overseeing coal exploration in India and is responsible for carrying out the activities in a sustainable manner. Additionally, it seeks to build the infrastructure needed for reliable coal supplies to satisfy the demands of other industries.
• The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act of 2006 created the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPN) to oversee the exploration and utilization of petroleum resources, including natural gas. Additionally, it plans, guarantees the growth and control of, and supports all industries connected to the MoPN.

Changes proposed

In August 2020, the MoM released a notice outlining a few changes that will be made to the MMDR Act. The “Atmanirbhar Bharat” initiative, which aims to increase private investment, create jobs, and introduce cutting-edge technology into the mining sector, is the entire strategy that underpins the proposed shift. By allowing the private sector to engage in exploratory activities in addition to the general exploration and survey work carried out by government agencies, it seeks to increase exploration activity.

The suggested changes consist of:

• To increase the number of mineral blocks up for auction, a seamless exploration, mining, and production system will be implemented.
• By overcoming old problems, to transition to an auction-only system for allocating mineral resources.
• To eliminate the disparity between captive and non-captive mines, sell excess or unused minerals, and transfer mining leases with permission to improve mining and production efficiency.
• For various minerals, a clear national mineral index will be created.
• The regulations should be streamlined to calculate stamp duty on mining leases.

Conclusion

The Government has taken a stride toward achieving mineral security in India with the reforms. The former 1957 Act’s restrictive practices were repealed by the new legal system, which also addressed other mining-related concerns such as auctions, the transfer of statutory clearances, the operation of District Mineral Foundation (DMF) Trusts, etc. The change is made to generate jobs, raise the mining industry’s GDP contribution, and lure both domestic and foreign investment. However, it will be interesting to see how the new legal system will do under judicial scrutiny and time.

However, without efficient application of regulations, the current revisions in mining regulations are insufficient. India’s government is required by international law to defend its citizens’ human rights against violations by mining companies and other businesses. There are laws in India that are intended to accomplish this, but some of them are so shoddily constructed that it seems as though they were created to fail. Others have lost their effectiveness because of poor implementation, enforcement, or corruption on the part of elected authorities or government employees. As a result, significant government watchdogs watch as out-of-control mining operations jeopardize the landscapes, livelihoods, and health of entire people.

In other instances, public institutions have also been defrauded of substantial sums of money that may have gone toward bolstering governments’ shoddy delivery of vital services like health and education. Experience has taught us that without strong government control, not all businesses in India and around the world will act ethically. Despite their best efforts, some businesses will fail if there is insufficient government regulation. Therefore, proper execution of the regulation is necessary with the introduction of new regulations and changes to current regulations.

References

1. Aqa Raza, Mukesh Dwivedi, Regulatory Framework of Minerals and Mining Industry in India in Relation to Environmental Concerns: A Critical Analysis, July 9, 2019, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3415706.
2. TLCJ, September 24, 2021, https://journal.thelawcommunicants.com/indian-mining-regulatory-regime/.

This article is written by Kanika Arora from Delhi Metropolitan Education (Affiliated to GGSIPU).

Name of the Case

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Others v State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation

AIR 1985 S.C. 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169

Year of the Case

1985

Appellant

Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh

Bench

Justice P.N. Bhagwati
Justice Amerendra Nath
Justice Rangnath Mishra

Acts Involved

Constitution of India, Article 32 and 48A, The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Central Act No. 69, Acts of Parliament, 1980, The Mines Act, 1952.

Overview

This judgment is associated with a previous sentence by the Supreme Court in a similar context. The Apex Court had recognized a writ petition from Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra concerning the illicit and unauthorized working of limestone mining in the Mussoorie Hill radius, India. It said that the quarries initiated a peril to a thriving environment and affected the eternal water springs. During the unresolved of the Writ Petitions, the Bench had assigned a committee to analyze the limestone quarries expressed in the Writ Petitions. The Government had also appointed a working batch on the excavation of limestone quarries in the Dehradun-Mussoorie region. On 12th March 1985, the Apex Court consented to a comprehensive order giving several directions and discovering that the particulars of the decision would be embarked in the verdict to trail later. In this decision, although, the court opined that it was not crucial to give any additional reasons which had already been presumed in the decision held by the Bench on 12th March 1985 as the broad grounds had been adequately embarked in that direction.

Facts of the Case

Doon Valley is a division of the Mussoorie hill strings of The Himalayas. The Doon valley region was very prosperous. Various rivers have their origin in Mussoorie hills which made the valley zone ecologically flourish. However, it set off a district for limestone mining and the valley started degrading due to the operation of fulminating, cutting trees, and utmost mining in the 1950s. Limestone mining actions in the Doon valley increased between 1955 and 1965. The action of exploding, for the extraction of minerals, led to a lack of vegetation in the valley. In the 1980s, the valley saw its natural beauty vanishing and experienced floods, high temperatures, landslides, water scarcity, and cropland obliteration.

The State minister of Mines of Uttar Pradesh prohibited mining industries in 1961. However, in 1962, the state government held numerous mining and excavation leases for 20 years and hollowing was happening again. When leases approached for resurrection in 1982, the state prohibited them on the account of ecological destruction. Mining companies expanded despite the decision of the government. Allahabad High Court authorized mining in the Doon valley, evaluating economic benefit over ecological elements. In 1983, a local NGO of Dehradun and RLEK, sent a complaint letter against environmental poverty to the Apex Court. The Supreme Court recorded this complaint under Article 32 as a writ petition. The Court directed the gauging of all current mining actions in the valley. The court also concentrated on the state government-initiated database for the cultivation of the zone.

Issues

1. Whether the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 will be licit in the process of recommencement of leases or not? The leases were resolved to mining industries in 1962 and the Forest Conservation Act was sanctioned in 1980.

2. Whether the mining operations in government forests violated the Forest Conservation Act? The Act prohibited those non-forest operations in forest areas, which do not have the assistance of the central government.

3. Whether environmental conservation should be given priority over the economic help of the country?

Contentions of the Petitioner

1. Environmental demolition in Doon Valley leads to obstruction in the living of citizens, which interrupts their fundamental right to a healthy environment. The right to a healthy environment is under Article 21 of the Constitution, a portion of the Right to Life.

2. Refusal of lease restoration by the public abolished the state’s consent for mining.

3. Forests come under a concurrent list, so authorization of the central government should also be mandatory for mining operations.

Contentions of the Respondent

The Respondents resisted that-

1. The troubling matters should not be evident by the Apex Court, but the administrative constructions of the state under the Environment Protection Act. It should be the affairs of the state’s officials.

2. Respondents asserted that all techniques of mining and quarrying were being moved out by the provisos of the Mines Act of 1952.

3. Mining activities should not be terminated because they are vital in the affairs of the country and the protection of the foreign exchange position of the country.

4. The termination of mines will lead to the redundancy of mine labour.

Judgment

The Central Government had been anxious about the perilous mining activities in the Valley at the aforesaid time when the Apex Court obtained the affair. In 1983, in the Dehradun Valley Litigation file, the Government of India assigned a Working Group to analyze the limestone investigation in the Dehradun-Mussoorie region. D.N. Bhargava, governed both the government’s Working Group and the committee of the court came to aligned conclusions as to the destructive effect of the mines on the surroundings. The Working Group also laid reviews for the court on the restricted mining activities, which were authorized to abide open. In 1986, during the litigation, Parliament sanctioned the Environment Protection Act. Subsequently, the Valley was selected as an organically exquisite portion beneath the Environment Protection Act. Also, the Central Government elected a Doon Valley Board, under the chairmanship of the Minister for Environment, which was entrusted with protecting and restoring contaminated zones of the Valley.

The Supreme Court held that mining in reserved forests in the Dehradun valley violated the Forest Conservation Act. The Forest Conservation Act only prohibited non-forest operations in forest areas that do not have the authorization of the Central Government. Furthermore, regarding ecological integrity and national benefits, the Apex Court was also anxious about the welfare of mine workers and labourers left unpaid by the Dehradun Valley activities. The Court delivered the following:

Mine lessees whose activities were wound-up by the court would be stated as a preference for leases in the new region open to mining. That the eco-task force of the central government, retrieve and reforest the zone vandalized by excavation and that the workers unsettled by mine closure be given preference for jobs with the Eco-Task Force activities in the region.

Concepts Highlighted

The Constitution of India guarantees the privilege of a healthy environment as a fundamental right under Article 21. Industrialization leads to evolution which additionally leads to the deprivation of the environment. The theory of sustainable development has developed over the years that there must be a balance between evolution and ecology. Environmental dishonoring is not right on the pretext of national benefit. According to the socio-economic desires of the nation, administrative and legislative policies for compatible environmental and evolution principles should be intimated. Courts play a very important role in directing the extent of the powers and motives of administrative operations and in evident stability between the environment and evolution.

The necessity of the hour is to maintain an equilibrium between the two. Therefore, the evolution on one edge and pollution permitted environment on the other. The main emphasis should be on the evolution of sustainable living and environmental needs. However, sustainable development is the only way out and administrative measures must follow in accordance therewith.

References

1. The Mines Act, 1952, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, (1992).
2. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, No. 29, Acts of Parliament, (1986).
3. Indian Constitution, art 21.

This article is written by Ashmita Dhumas, who has completed BA LLB from Agra College and is doing a diploma in
Corporate Law from Enhelion.