The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its decision on matters linked to the notification of the Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary and the Sasangdaburu Conservation Reserve as conservation areas in Jharkhand. A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran reserved the order after hearing arguments from senior advocate and amicus curiae K. Parmeswar, senior lawyer Kapil Sibal representing the Jharkhand government, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL).
Why was the delay in notification raised before the court?
The amicus curiae pointed out the delay in declaring the areas as conservation reserves. He also claimed that the proposed conservation reserve area was being reduced from 31,468.25 hectares to about 24,000 hectares to favor private mining companies. However, Sibal objected strongly, saying that 38% of Jharkhand’s land is covered by forests and the state remains dedicated to protecting them. Solicitor General Mehta requested that SAIL be allowed to continue mining iron ore near the proposed sanctuary in the national interest.
What directions did the Supreme Court give to the parties?
After hearing all sides, the bench reserved its verdict and directed the parties to submit written arguments by Friday. Earlier, the court had asked the Jharkhand government to take a final decision on declaring the Saranda region as a reserve forest. The issue relates to a long-pending plan to notify Saranda and Sasangdaburu forest areas in West Singhbhum district as a wildlife sanctuary and a conservation reserve. In its affidavit, the state said it intended to notify 57,519.41 hectares as a wildlife sanctuary, instead of the original 31,468.25 hectares.
How did the court respond to the state’s delay?
On September 17, the court criticized the Jharkhand government for what it called “unfair conduct” and “delay tactics” in declaring the Saranda region a sanctuary. It ordered Chief Secretary Avinash Kumar to appear on October 8 and explain the delay. The chief secretary later appeared, represented by Kapil Sibal, who sought a week’s time to finalize the decision. The CJI warned that if the state failed to act, the court would issue a writ of mandamus to declare the area a sanctuary. The bench stated it was not interested in sending anyone to jail but emphasized that action must be taken.
What permissions and clarifications were made regarding mining?
Meanwhile, the court allowed SAIL to continue mining from its existing operational mines located near the proposed sanctuary, citing national interest. It clarified that mining could continue only in mines already under operation or previously leased. The Solicitor General said SAIL provides steel for important national missions like ‘Chandrayaan,’ and most of its iron ore comes from these nearby mines. The bench also ordered that no new mining leases should be issued in the area. The Jharkhand government explained that confusion over the total area arose due to internal communication with the Wildlife Institute of India. The amicus curiae reminded the court that the state had agreed to notify 57,519.41 hectares as a sanctuary. The bench noted that there should at least be no confusion in declaring 31,468.25 hectares as a sanctuary. Earlier, frustrated with non-compliance, the bench had said the state was in “clear contempt” of its April 29, 2025 order and directed the chief secretary to appear in court. The Wildlife Protection Act allows for the declaration and management of conservation reserves. The Jharkhand government informed the court that it had expanded the proposed sanctuary to 57,519.41 hectares and designated another 13,603.806 hectares for the Sasangdaburu Conservation Reserve.
