The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) warned that it may order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged illegal mining and the regularisation of mining areas along the Jojari-Luni-Bandi river system in Rajasthan, questioning why State authorities had granted mining leases in areas where illegal mining had been detected, and regularising illegal leases.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta cautioned that several officials could face serious consequences if the State failed to take corrective action, while expressing concern over the authorities' failure to protect the rivers despite repeated judicial directions.

“What have you done about providing the statistics of the mining, illegal mining in the rivers? What have you done? You have regularized. You know, Mr. Raju, when illegal mining was pointed out, your officers went ahead and regularized those leases. We feel that if you don't pull up your socks and don't mend your ways, we'll be compelled to direct a CBI investigation. That would land many of your officers in hot waters,” Justice Mehta told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for Rajasthan.

The Court was hearing the Supreme Court's suo motu proceedings concerning pollution in the Jojari-Luni-Bandi river system, which has affected the environment and the lives of approximately 20 lakh people.

In August, the Court directed that no construction or development activity shall be permitted within 100 metres of the edge of the river system until completion of a scientific exercise to determine and demarcate the High Flood Line and the requisite ecological buffer zones, as an interim measure to protect the river ecosystem from further ecological degradation.

Today, the Court questioned the State's explanation that it had registered hundreds of cases relating to illegal mining, observing that registration of cases did not address the fact that mining areas previously identified as illegal had subsequently been regularised.

“Why have you regularised?” Justice Mehta asked, referring to the State's own compliance affidavit which recorded the allotment of mining areas through leases. The Court questioned how the natural flow of rivers could be maintained if contiguous stretches along their courses were allotted for mining.

“You have allotted mining areas, allotted as leases. What kind of action is that? You say that you have registered FIRs. They are contiguous, one after the other. How do you maintain the river flow if you are giving contiguous leases?”, he questioned.

When the ASG said the allotments had been made in accordance with the prescribed procedure, Justice Mehta asked whether the State was “sanctioning illegal mining by an executive order”. He pointed out that the area in question had witnessed illegal mining and had now been allotted under leases.

When ASG Raju explained that the original mining was illegal because it had been undertaken without permission, Justice Mehta asked how the State could regularise it in those circumstances. The ASG said that he would examine the issue. The Court warned that it would order a CBI investigation if the State failed to address the issue.

Court questions misrepresentation of its directions

The Court also strongly criticised Rajasthan officials for misrepresenting the Supreme Court's earlier directions on demarcating river boundaries, in order to narrow the flow corridors of rivers affected by industrial pollution.

The Court questioned a communication issued by an officer of the Water Resources Department that cited the Court's September 22 order in order to treat the dry-season flow of the Luni River as the basis for determining its High Flood Line.

Justice Mehta pointed out that a bridge across the Luni River at Balotra was approximately 1,782 metres wide, whereas the State's records indicated a flow width of around eight metres.

“Height of absurdity,” Justice Mehta remarked, questioning how a river that periodically floods could be confined to such a narrow corridor.

The Court emphasised that the relevant reference for determining the High Flood Line must account for the river's flood conditions rather than merely its dry-season flow. It noted that river experiences floods every two to three years when there is sufficient rainfall.

The Court also referred to the High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee's report, which had flagged that orders defining the flow paths and edges of the rivers did not accord with the Supreme Court's directions.

ASG Raju acknowledged that the approach could not be adopted and said that the State would not grant fresh permissions for industries until the flood lines are scientifically determined.

Justice Mehta questioned why officials had sought to reduce the flow areas of rivers despite the Court's directions on protecting their corridors.

“Which order of this Court says so?” Justice Mehta asked, seeking an explanation for the officer's interpretation of the Court's directions.

“What do you propose to do against this Chief Engineer of your Water Resources Department? He makes a false reference to the court's order and passes this communication, draws these minutes. Just see the phony, phony decisions”, he said.

“Your officers are hoodwinking,” Justice Nath remarked during the hearing, while Justice Mehta said that the officials “seem to have made it a point to try and play fraud with the court”.

Justice Mehta added, “Your officer who has drawn this order deserves to be placed under suspension, Mr. Raju. He has made a false reference to the court's order for passing this order…Really, we fail to understand the bona fides of your officers.”

Raju called the communication an obvious mistake but said that he would examine whether it was deliberate.

The Court accepted the committee's recommendation that the State protect the entire recorded river corridors, using whichever boundary was wider in the records of the Revenue Department and Water Resources Department.

State asked to fund zero-liquid-discharge facilities

The Court also asked State of Rajasthan to return at the next hearing with a concrete financial proposal to support the establishment of common effluent treatment plants (CETPs) equipped with zero-liquid-discharge (ZLD) technology.

Justice Mehta said that the State could not shift the entire responsibility for restoring the rivers to industries and municipal bodies, particularly when its own authorities had failed to discharge their regulatory obligations.

"Mr. Raju, for reviving the industries and for establishing these ZLD plants, the state has to cough up something. That is a part of the polluter pays. You are equally responsible for the pollution. We are telling you, by closing your eyes or rather supporting this illegal activity, the state is privy to this polluting activity. So you have now to support these efforts of setting up the ZLD. Next hearing, we want a positive approach from the state with whatever financial support is required. If you really want, sincerely want the industries to be revived, then you have to come up with some offer. They will, of course, they will have to contribute. It can't be 100 percent, it will be subsidized. But ultimately, the state has to make some kind of financial grant for setting up all these ZLDs," he said.

He said that the State would have to contribute towards establishing treatment facilities and redistributing pipelines to enable treated water to be recirculated to industries. Industrial units would also have to contribute, but the State is expected to provide financial assistance, he said.

“Mr. Raju, you have to convey to the state that ultimately, the polluter phase principle will apply equally to the state as well as to the industries. So, as the state and its officials have apparently failed to discharge their obligations, we'll cast first burden on the state now”, he said.

The Court warned that if Rajasthan failed to come forward with an acceptable proposal, it would turn its attention to the Sanganer industrial area, where, according to the State's own affidavit, nearly 80 per cent of industries were operating without no-objection certificates. Justice Mehta emphasised that said the issue could also warrant a CBI investigation.

The Court also refused to weigh the economic viability of industries against the severe environmental consequences for affected residents.

“Making 20 lakh people live in hell cannot be compared with your economic viability and economic sustenance of a few thousand people,” Justice Mehta remarked.

The State was directed to submit a practical proposal for restoring the river system and enabling compliant industries to resume or continue operations.

The matter will be heard next on November 27.