INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Vishnu Sudarsan, Kartikeya Gajjala and Mehar Vasant, J Sagar Associates
2.9 Good and Bad Examples of Community Relations/Consultation Impacting Mining Projects The mining sector in India has been witness to both positive and negative cases of environmen - tal and community relations/consultation. Good Example A good example of community relations is the strategy adopted by a large mining conglomer - ate in India, whose outreach efforts span multi - ple fronts, including: • children’s well-being and education; • women’s empowerment; • healthcare; • drinking water and sanitation; • sustainable agriculture and animal welfare; • labour market-related skills for young people; • environmental protection and restoration; • sports and culture; and • the development of community infrastructure. These efforts are aimed at improving the qual - ity of life of the communities in and around its operational areas, and have yielded positive responses from locals, thereby fostering a sense of trust and inclusion. Bad Example An instance of a public consultation being poorly conducted is the public hearing for the expansion of an iron ore mining facility in the Surjagarh Hills region of Maharashtra. On grounds of security concerns, the public hearing was planned at a location 130 km away from the affected villages. This did not sit well with locals, and reportedly triggered panic and protest over rumours that 13 villages would be displaced as a result of the proposed expansion plans. While the authori - ties had arranged transport for the villagers, it is understood that many from the 13 hamlets did
In an effort to combat illegal mining, a “Min - ing Surveillance System” has been developed by the central government in collaboration with Bhaskaracharya National Institute for Space Applications and Geo-informatics – it uses satel - lite technology for real-time monitoring of illegal mining activities. The courts of law have taken a very strict view on illegal mining, directing that rules have to be strictly enforced by state governments in order to control and regulate the mining, storage and transportation of minerals and prevent leakages and evasion of revenue (see Goa Foundation v Union of India and Ors., reported as (2014) 6 SCC 590). Indeed, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to temporarily impose an absolute ban on mining activities in three districts of the state of Karnataka (vide orders dated 29 July 2011 and 26 August 2011 in Samaj Parivartana Samu - daya and Ors. v State of Karnataka and Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009) on the basis of the principle of intergenerational equity and to prevent huge ecological and environmental degradation following the rampant illegal mining in these three districts. The Supreme Court has also seen fit to enlarge and clarify the scope of “illegal mining”, having opined in Common Cause and Ors. v Union of India and Ors., reported as (2017) 9 SCC 499, that illegal mining is not confined only to mining operations outside a leased area but also covers excess extraction of a mineral over the permissi - ble limit even within the mining lease area that is held under lawful authority, if that excess extrac - tion is contrary to the mining scheme, the mining plan, the mining lease or a statutory requirement – a narrow interpretation is unacceptable since the issues concern a natural resource intended for the benefit of everyone and not only for the benefit of the mining lease holders.
238 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook