Amid concerns that the Centre’s definition of the Aravalli hills will open the range up for mining, the Union environment ministry earlier this month ordered states and Union territories to conduct just one survey of forests to be mined, saying “repetitive” surveys caused delays and “unnecessary expenditure”.
In the letter, dated December 11, the ministry said separate surveys by multiple agencies as well as the bidder delayed the execution of mining leases.
Experts, however, criticised the move and pointed out that each survey had separate objectives and unique parameters. A joint check, they argued, will not meet these standards, impinge on each department’s autonomy and will water down a crucial process baked into law to safeguard forests and green spaces.
The letter, signed by Charan Jeet Singh, a scientist at the forest conservation division of the Union environment ministry, said, “It has been observed that separate surveys of forest areas proposed for diversion are currently being undertaken by multiple agencies; by the Mining Department during the pre-auction stage, by the bidder at the postauction stage, and by the Forest Department while preparing proposals for diversion of forest land.” HT has seen a copy of the letter.
This “repetition” leads to “duplication of effort, unnecessary expenditure of resources, and delays in completing the statutory processes required prior to the execution of the lease,” the letter said.
To speed up the process of mining contracts being seen through, the ministry directed that state revenue, forest and mining authorities conduct a single joint survey either before or after the auction.
“The State Mining Department may coordinate with the other Departments to facilitate the timely conduct of such joint surveys,” said the letter.
The move comes in the backdrop of a swirling controversy against the Centre’s definition of the Aravalli hills, which environmentalists have said will free up swathes of the critical landmasses for commercial exploitation. It also makes way for the mining of critical minerals such as lead, zinc, silver and copper ore, and atomic minerals across the entire range.
HT reached out to the Union environment ministry for a comment on Sunday evening, but did not receive a response till the time of going to print.
A central government panel in November defined landforms rising at least 100 metres above the local relief as Aravalli hills, a definition the Supreme Court accepted during a November 20 hearing. “Local relief” means the elevation difference between the hill and its surrounding base area. The definition also defines the Aravalli range as two or more hills within 500 metres of each other.
A Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices JK Maheshwari and AG Masih will in a special sitting on Monday suo motu hear the Aravallis definition issue, reopening the possibility of a judicial relook at its recent ruling.
The Union environment ministry has sought to rebut the criticism, arguing that the definition protects over 90% of the range and leaves scope for mining on less than 0.2% of the landform. It has also moved to enforce a strict ban on new mining leases across the range, in line with a Supreme Court direction.
“How can the mining department coordinate with the other two departments?” said RP Balwan, a former Indian Forest Services officer who dealt with several mining related cases during his tenure.
“The forest department’s survey is based on forestry technical parameters, while the mining department looks for material to be mined. It is undesirable to club forest people with the mining department. It is against the sovereign functioning of forest officials,” he said.
“The forest department should do an independent survey. The forest department is involved only when the matter falls under the Forest Conservation Act and there is a need to divert forest area. The timelines for investigations, forest surveys by the forest department are already stipulated in the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samnvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 so the question of delay does not arise,” said Balwan, who has separately also moved the Supreme Court against the Centre’s definition of the Aravallis.
The environment ministry’s letter has been sent to the ministries of mines, coal, steel, power, state and UT forest departments and nodal officers dealing with diversion of forest land.
HT last week reported that around two weeks after the Supreme Court accepted the Aravalli definition, the Union environment ministry held a meeting on December 8 to set in motion a process for states to begin delineating which areas in Aravallis qualify for a sustainable mining plan — critical groundwork that uses the contested definition and will establish the baseline for future mining permissions.