Posted on August 25, 2025
Ruling comes on J&K highway project that has already been completed
In a major decision to curb environmental damage from sand mining, the Supreme Court underlined on Friday that no approval can be granted for mining in a riverbed without a proper scientific study to assess how quickly the sand is naturally replaced.
The court described this “replenishment study” as a mandatory requirement, upholding a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order that had cancelled the environmental clearance for a mining project in Jammu and Kashmir.
A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed appeals filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), and NKC Projects Pvt Ltd, the project proponent against the NGT’s decision.
The judgement stated: “The absence of a replenishment study renders a DSR [District Survey Report] fundamentally defective.” It emphasised that these studies are essential to scientifically determine sustainable extraction limits and prevent the degradation of river ecosystems.
However, the judgement itself will have no immediate practical effect. This is because the project for which the faulty environment clearance was granted is already complete.
The case
The case originated from environmental clearance granted on April 19, 2022 for sand and gravel extraction from three blocks in the Shaliganga Nallah riverbed. The mining was intended to provide material for the construction of a four-lane bypass around Srinagar city by the NHAI.
The Jammu and Kashmir Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) had initially rejected the proposal on January 3, 2022. It noted that the area was already “over-exploited” due to illegal mining and that the DSR for the district needed revision to include replenishment data.
Explained
The rate of replenishment
The Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 mandate the calculation of the ‘annual rate of replenishment’. “Just as forest conservation requires assessment of tree growth rate before permitting timber harvesting… a replenishment study enables us to take an informed decision,” the court observed.
However, after the project proponent received a ‘Fit for Mining Certificate’, the EAC recommended the clearance on March 2, 2022 while reiterating that the DSR was not formulated as per guidelines. Subsequently, the Jammu and Kashmir Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Authority granted the clearance. It acknowledged the “non-availability of replenishment data” in the DSR and imposed a condition restricting mining depth to a maximum of one metre.
This clearance was challenged before the NGT by environmental activist Raja Muzaffar Bhat, the respondent in the case. The NGT allowed the appeal in 2022 and set aside the clearance, finding it to be in violation of environmental norms.
Supreme Court’s reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the Union Territory authorities committed a “serious error” and displayed “regulatory failure” by granting the clearance based on an incomplete DSR. The court described the decision as a “half-hearted approach” and an “unacceptable” compromise of regulatory integrity.
The bench traced the legal framework for sand mining, starting from the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to a landmark 2012 judgement of the Supreme Court which made environmental clearance mandatory for minor mineral extraction. The court noted that the requirement for a DSR was introduced through a 2016 amendment to the EIA Notification, specifically to bring scientific rigour to the process.
The judgement further highlighted that both the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 mandate the calculation of the annual rate of replenishment.
“Just as forest conservation requires assessment of tree growth rate before permitting timber harvesting… a replenishment study enables us to take an informed decision as to whether sand mining can be permitted without degrading the rivers’ natural balance,” the court observed.
The court fully agreed with the NGT’s finding that there is no provision in the law that allows for the requirement of a DSR or replenishment study to be waived, even if mining is restricted to a shallow depth.
While dismissing the appeals, the court took note of the submission by the project proponent’s counsel that the highway project itself was now complete. Therefore, no further orders were necessary.
