State must protect life, ecology: SC (Herald)

State must protect life, ecology: SC October 4, 2013 GERARD DE SOUZA NEW DELHI: “Even if there is no notification of wildlife sanctuaries and buffer zones, the Supreme Court can say that you (state government) are obliged under Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution to protect life including the environment and that you can’t exploit within this area.” These were stern observations of the Supreme Court, while hearing the lessees who were arguing why and how it was legal for them to be mining within one kilometre of wildlife sanctuaries, on the eighth day of hearing of the Goa mining case. The observations sent an already tense courtroom into a tizzy even as SC also asked the lawyers arguing on behalf of the lessees to go by “common sense”. “When it comes to mining, it is an obligation of the state under Article 21. We can say that you must not exploit within this area. What we are saying is that it is our jurisdiction,” the bench led by Justice AK Patnaik observed. “As far as mining is concerned, the guarantee under Article 21 is the state. When we say the state is under obligation, we may say that you may not exploit your mineral through lessees,” Justice Patnaik observed. “Let us go by common sense. Will mining within a kilometre not affect wildlife? The dust will settle on the trees... Let us be very fair to one thing and that is the truth. Because it is the truth that triumphs. Satyamev Jayate! We can understand if you are saying that within 10km it should be permitted otherwise all the mining in Goa will have to shut down. But one kilometre?” Justice Patnaik questioned. “Ultimately we have to see what is the distance that is safe for the environment. For this, it cannot be site specific. We are of the view that it should be activity specific... how much distance is allowed if you want to build a road, for habitation, for touristic activities. Buffer zone must be connected with the activity you are doing; whether it is a nuclear plant or whether it is blasting,” the court observed. When told that the government was considering a buffer zone of one kilometre with phasing out of mining within the one km area over 8 to 10 years the court said: “They can place it; we’ll consider whether the government is reasonable or not.” Later in the day Advocate Aryama Sundaram arguing on behalf of Chowgule, Bandekar and Madikam lessees said that if the court wishes to prospectively declare that mining within a kilometre wasn’t allowed, on account of various reasons, he would have no problem, but that because he has been mining within one kilometre of a wildlife sanctuary, he shouldn’t be construed as an illegality. Sundaram said that they were not illegal (mines) because they had a valid environmental clearance (EC) granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and a mining plan that was approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines and secondly because the state government appointed Karapurkar Committee and the state government itself had said that mining within a kilometre of the sanctuary was allowed, through its legal opinion. “So what you are saying is that if anybody has to be held responsible it is the IBM?” the court asked Sundaram, which the latter concurred with. Responding to the court’s iterations that they can pass a judgement with a view to protect the environment irrespective of notification of sanctuaries or not, Sundaram said that did not make him an illegal miner. “That doesn’t mean I’m illegal. We’re not illegal miners. If the Supreme Court wants to regulate us in the future under Article 32 (powers of the Supreme Court) read with Article 21 (right to life) we are fine with that,” Sundaram said. The court was also hearing arguments on the basis of deemed extensions given to the leaseholders by Adv Rafique Dada on behalf of Sociedade Timblo Irmaos Limitada when the matter was adjourned to October 22 for further hearings. The day’s proceedings brought three weeks and eight days of hearings to a close for now until October 22. The proceedings saw mood swings from childish excitement on the part of the mine lessees who were present in strength in the audience section to furious and frustrated expressions as the lawyers argued and counter argued and the court made its observations. http://www.oheraldo.in/News/Main%20Page%20News/State-must-protect-life-ecology-SC/80254.html