Supreme Court Directs Centre & NBWL To Determine Presence Of Wetland Conservation Reserves In HP Before Applying 10-Km Mining Restraint

The Supreme Court directed the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to determine whether any Wetland Conservation Reserve exists within the State of Himachal Pradesh before imposing a 10-kilometre mining embargo.

Hearing interlocutory applications filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh and local project proponents in the T.N. Godavarman matter, the Court held that administrative boundaries cannot divide contiguous Himalayan terrain sharing identical geographical conditions.

However, the Court clarified that if no such wetland conservation reserve is identified in Himachal Pradesh by the expert committee within one month, pending mining applications shall be decided strictly in accordance with the standard operating procedures.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "It needs no emphasis that both the States are adjoining and there is a continuous Himalayan terrain passing through both States. It must be in this backdrop that the High Court has been approached...Apprehending that the direction issued by this Court towards the State of Uttarakhand may be mechanically applied in the case of Himachal Pradesh, the instant Interlocutory Application has been moved by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Some project proponents of Himachal Pradesh have also separately approached this Court...It may be seen that the restraint on mining activities within a radius of 10 kilometres has been imposed in the case of a "Wetland Conservation Reserve". Whether such a Wetland Conservation Reserve is located in the State of Himachal Pradesh or not is essentially a question of fact to be determined by an expert committee...

The Court said, "We, therefore, direct the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife or, alternatively, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to take a specific decision on the request that may be made on the application that has already been moved by the State of Himachal Pradesh, and determine whether or not there are Wetland Conservation Reserves in the State of Himachal Pradesh."

An Interlocutory Application was filed in the writ petition seeking clarification regarding the territorial applicability of mining restrictions near wetland conservation reserves.

In 2015, the Uttarakhand High Court imposed an absolute restraint on mining activities within a 10-kilometre radius of the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve in Uttarakhand.

Subsequently, vide order dated February 14 2024, the Supreme Court modified the framework to direct that no mining activity would be permitted within 10 kilometres of the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve without the prior permission of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).

The Court, on February 14 2024, formulated two questions for consideration that emanated from the orders passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, and consequently directed that no mining activity would be permitted within 10 kilometres of the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve without the permission of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). 

Following these directions, a few litigants approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking to enforce the 10-kilometre restriction within Himachal Pradesh as well.

Apprehending that the direction issued by this Court towards the State of Uttarakhand may be mechanically applied in the case of Himachal Pradesh, the instant Interlocutory Application has been moved by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Some project proponents of Himachal Pradesh have also separately approached the Court.

It was submitted by the Petitioner that the orders required urgent clarification because the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve primarily pertained to Uttarakhand, yet project activities in the adjoining State of Himachal Pradesh were facing operational delays. The State sought a clear determination as to whether the 10-kilometre embargo mechanically extended across state borders into areas lacking designated wetland reserves.

Counsel appearing for the mining project proponents contended that the High Court's restriction was grounded in an outdated legal regime. It was argued that under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, a 'Conservation Reserve' stands on a lower statutory hierarchy than National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries.

Counsel relied upon subsequent Supreme Court rulings that diluted the earlier 10-kilometre buffer zone mandate down to a 1-kilometre Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) exclusively for National Parks and Sanctuaries, leaving no statutory requirement for a buffer zone around Conservation Reserves. Consequently, it was urged that activities outside the boundary of a Conservation Reserve did not require NBWL clearance.

CJI Kant said, "Let the MoEFCC and the expert committee referred to by this Court take a call on it. We cannot issue… suppose there is a wetland area, a wetland reserve area in the State of Uttarakhand and also in the State of Himachal Pradesh...We are only saying, hypothetically, suppose it is in the State of Himachal Pradesh also. Only because of a demarcation line on paper, you are dividing two states having the same geographical conditions. We can't pass two different orders. That will apply uniformly. That means the entire Himalayan terrain will be governed by the same set of regulations. The only exception can be if an expert body says that the wetland is not in your state. Then only you can be exempt. So for that, let them decide, let them take a call."

It was observed that both Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh form part of a continuous Himalayan terrain sharing identical ecological conditions.

The Court held that arbitrary administrative or paper boundaries could not justify conflicting regulatory regimes across the same geographical terrain.

The Bench emphasized that uniform regulations must apply across contiguous ecological zones, unless an expert body conclusively established that no such wetland conservation reserve existed within the territory of a particular State.

The Court concluded, "We may hasten to add that if Wetland Conservation Reserves are found or identified in the State of Himachal Pradesh, in that case, the directions issued by this Court on 14th February 2024 shall apply in the case of the State of Himachal Pradesh as well, mutatis mutandis. However, if there is no such Wetland Conservation Reserve, in that case, the competent authorities shall decide the issue of mining strictly in accordance with the SOPs. Let the appropriate decision be taken within one month."

Accordingly, the Court directed the competent authority to complete the requisite determination and take a final decision within a period of one month.

Cause Title: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. [I.A. 88067 of 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995]