During a recent hearing on coal mining in Chhattisgarh's Hasdeo Aranya forest area, the Supreme Court raised serious questions about the compensatory afforestation efforts taken by coal block allottees and the State Government.
A bench led by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by Sudiep Shrivastava and Dinesh Kumar Soni. Both petitions challenge the mining activities in PEKB (Parsa East and Kente Basan) and Parsa coal blocks, citing environmental violations and prior Supreme Court judgments like the Coalgate case.
Read also: “A Cow is a Cow” – Supreme Court Rejects Plea for Use of Only Indigenous Cow Milk at Tirumala Temple
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing petitioner Dinesh Kumar Soni, informed the court that Hasdeo Aranya forest is a no-go and inviolate zone as per the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). He said:
“All mining leases granted here fall in this protected zone, yet permissions have been issued, leading to widespread tree cutting.”
Bhushan also pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier cancelled similar coal block allocations when they were given to a private entity, reportedly the Adani Group. Despite this, he argued, the blocks have again been leased out post-cancellation, violating the earlier ruling.
Read also: Supreme Court Directs Isha Foundation and Nakkheeran to Approach Delhi High Court
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the respondents, countered the argument. He stated that mining was being done in a phased manner and that for every 100 trees felled, 1000 trees are being planted as per environmental regulations. He assured the bench:
“We have all necessary permissions. Replantation is happening as mandated.”
However, Justice Kant questioned this claim sharply:
“But who verifies this? Where are these 1000 trees being planted? Which area? Who is monitoring it? Is any government agency involved?”
Rohatgi replied that the Chhattisgarh Forest Department is responsible for monitoring. Still, the bench emphasized that vague claims are not enough without proof of the actual replantation areas.
Read also: Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Against Political Parties Using Tricolour-Themed Flags With Symbols
Petitioner Sudiep Shrivastava, appearing in person, informed the Court that the mining activity violates the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) report. He said:
“Only 10% of India’s coal deposits lie in dense forest areas, and even then, current and future demands can be met without touching them.”
He stressed that mining in such eco-sensitive zones would lead to irreparable damage, regardless of any afforestation efforts. Shrivastava stated that the first coal block alone contains over 3.68 lakh trees, and the second has around 96,000. Combined, the estimated tree loss exceeds 1 million.
“Why is there a need to enter the dense forest when the first block is enough to meet demand?” Bhushan added, pointing to WII's recommendation to halt mining.
Shrivastava also cited the WII report to highlight the area's significance for wildlife. He said the region is prone to human-elephant conflict, and nearly 15% of such casualties in India happen in Chhattisgarh.
Read also: Supreme Court Permits Bhupesh Baghel to Contest Maintainability of Nephew Vijay Baghel’s Election Petition
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Parsakente Collieries Ltd., clarified that the company is merely a Mine Developer and Operator (MDO) and has no say in allocation.
On being asked whether the Chhattisgarh Government has any role, Bhushan pointed out that the entire State Assembly has passed a resolution against mining in the region.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Union, submitted that afforestation efforts are being taken. But Justice Kant pressed further:
“Do you have an aerial view of what has been cut in the first phase? Where exactly is alternate plantation happening, and what is its status?”
The matter has been adjourned to allow all parties to file additional documents. Considering Bhushan’s concerns that tree felling may resume after the monsoon, the bench has listed the matter for further hearing on August 19.
Case Titles:
- Dinesh Kumar Soni vs Union of India and Others, W.P. (C) No. 371/2019
- Sudiep Shrivastava vs Union of India and Others, W.P. (C) No. 510/2023