The
Supreme Court, during a hearing on December 4, asked the
environment ministry for its views on whether there should be a production cap on
iron ore mining in Odisha. The mines ministry has opposed such a cap on the ground that increased iron ore production is needed to ramp up steel production, and the steel industry is crucial for India’s industrialisation. Further, the mines ministry says
Odisha isn’t likely to run out of iron ore as it has enough reserves. However, the apex court wants the government to consider intergenerational equity and the environmental impact. The environment ministry is likely to endorse the mines ministry’s views. This government is not known to speak in two voices. Two states, Karnataka and Goa, have court-imposed restrictions on mining in place. These were imposed in the wake of corruption scandals in the mining sector, leading to environmentally unsustainable practices. Caps can only be relaxed with court permission.
Over the years, the top court has vastly expanded the meaning of ‘right to life’ in the Constitution. The threat to the environment posed by rampant mining has been interpreted as endangering the right to life. The court has, indeed, made far-sighted interventions in environmental matters, notably by mandating the use of CNG in taxis and autos.
However, the court ought to rethink its wide-ranging supervision of mining in the country. Whether or not the requirement of intergenerational equity is being met is best left to the elected governments. Further, NGOs who file cases against mining companies ought to contest elections to implement their ideas, not fire from the court’s shoulders. The supervision of mining restrictions lasting years brings the court directly into administrative matters, something best avoided.
