Supreme Court: Only Valid and Subsisting DSR Can Form Basis for Environmental Clearance; Draft DSR Legally Untenable

Background

The case arose out of a batch of appeals challenging an order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which had quashed the e-auction notice dated February 13, 2023, issued by the District Magistrate of Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. This notice called for tenders for sand mining operations despite the absence of a valid DSR.

The last approved DSR for the Saharanpur district, finalized in 2017, had lapsed by 2022. A new DSR was in progress, but only a draft version was available at the time of the auction. Respondent No. 1, a resident of Haryana, challenged the auction before the NGT, citing violations of environmental regulations.

The NGT, after constituting a Joint Committee comprising the CPCB, UPPCB, and the District Magistrate, found that Letters of Interest (LOIs) had already been issued for 14 mining sites based on the void auction. The Tribunal declared the auction illegal, citing the lack of a valid DSR, and referenced violations of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 and the Sand Mining Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines, 2020.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision

The division bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra upheld the NGT’s decision. It stressed that:

• A draft DSR is legally equivalent to a non-existent DSR.
• Only a valid and final DSR, approved as per prescribed procedures, can form the basis for granting environmental clearance for B2 category projects involving mining of minor minerals in areas of 5 hectares or less.
• The District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) and District Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) must base their recommendations strictly on a subsisting DSR.

The Court reaffirmed the mandatory nature of the DSR, stating that it is central to informed environmental decision-making. The report must go through public consultation, be displayed for 21 days at the Collectorate and on the district website, incorporate public feedback, and be finalized within six months. Its validity is capped at five years, after which a fresh DSR must be prepared.

Ecological Significance of Sand

Delving deeper, the Court highlighted the ecological and environmental importance of sand. It plays a critical role in sustaining riverine and marine ecosystems, acting as a buffer against natural calamities and supporting biodiversity. Unregulated sand mining, the Court noted, leads to erosion, habitat loss, degradation of water quality, and disruption of aquatic life.

Moreover, the illicit sand trade, often tied to organized crime, weakens legal governance and undermines the rule of law. The judgment called for tough policies, strict enforcement, and quick accountability to combat such environmental offences effectively.

Legal and Constitutional Framework

The judgment discussed the constitutional entries related to “mines” and “minerals,” emphasizing the dual responsibility of the Centre and the States. However, in the absence of a dedicated mining legislation, the regulatory regime must adhere to environmental statutes like the Environment (Protection) Act, EIA Notifications, and mining guidelines.

The Court reaffirmed that any EC application without a valid DSR is incomplete and cannot be processed. It recognized the DEIAA and DEAC as the statutory bodies responsible for preparing and updating the DSRs every five years, taking into account evolving ecological conditions.

Final Ruling

Summarizing its stance, the Court held:

• The preparation of a DSR as per Appendix X and EIA Notification guidelines is mandatory.
• A draft DSR cannot form the basis for EC or any regulatory approvals.
• E-auctions or mining approvals granted without a valid DSR are illegal.
• The LOIs issued pursuant to the 2023 e-auction were void.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals and upheld the NGT’s order quashing the e-auction.