Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest & Others
[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 180 of 2011]
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
1. Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC), a State of Orissa Undertaking, has approached this Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) dated 24.8.2010rejecting the Stage-II forest clearance for diversion of 660.749 hectares of forest land for mining of bauxite ore in Lanjigarh Bauxite Mines in Kalahandi and Rayagada Districts of Orissa and also for other consequential reliefs.
2. OMC urged that the above order passed by the MOEF has the effect of neutralizing two orders of this Court passed in I.A. Nos. 1324 and 1474 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 with I.A. Nos. 2081-2082 (arising out of Writ Petition No. 549 of 2007) dated 23.11.2007 reported in (2008) 2 SCC222 [hereinafter referred to as 'Vedanta case'] and the order passed by this Court in I.A. No. 2134 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995 on08.08.2008 reported in (2008) 9 SCC 711 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Sterlite case']. In order to examine the issues raised in this writ petition, it is necessary to examine the facts at some length.
FACTS:
3. M/s. Sterlite (parent company of Vedanta) filed an application on19.3.2003 before MOEF for environmental clearance for the purpose of starting an Alumina Refinery Project (ARP) in Lanjigarh Tehsil of District Kalahandi, stating that no forest land was involved within an area of 10kms. The 4th respondent - Vedanta, in the meanwhile, had also filed an application on 6.3.2004 before this Court seeking clearance for the proposal for use of 723.343 ha of land (including 58.943 ha of reserve forest land) in Lanjigarh Tehsil of District Kalahandi for setting up an Alumina Refinery. Noticing that forest land was involved, the State of Orissa submitted a proposal dated 16.08.2004 to the MoEF for diversion of58.90 hectare of forest land which included 26.1234 hectare of forest land for the said ARP and the rest for the conveyor belt and a road to the mining site. The State of Orissa, later, withdrew that proposal.
The MoEF, as per the application submitted by M/s Sterlite, granted environmental clearance on 22.9.2004 to ARP on 1 million tonne per annum capacity of refinery along with 75 MW coal based CPP at Lanjigarh on 720hectare land, by delinking it with the mining project. Later, on24.11.2004, the State of Orissa informed MOEF about the involvement of58.943 ha of forest land in the project as against "NIL" mentioned in the environmental clearance and that the Forest Department of Orissa had, on5.8.2004, issued a show-cause-notice to 4th respondent for encroachment of10.41 acres of forest land (out of 58.943 ha for which FC clearance proposal was sent) by way of land breaking and leveling.
4. The State of Orissa, on 28.2.2005 forwarded the proposal to MOEF for diversion of 660.749 ha of forest land for mining bauxite ore in favour of OMC in Kalahandi and Rayagada Districts. The Central Empowered Committee(CEC), in the meanwhile, addressed a letter dated 2.3.2005 to MOEF stating that pending the examination of the project by CEC, the proposal for diversion of forest land and/or mining be not decided.
5. Vedanta, however, filed an application I.A. No. 1324 of 2005 before this Court seeking a direction to the MoEF to take a decision on the application for forest clearance for bauxite mining submitted by the state Government on 28.2.2005 for the Refinery project. The question that was posed by this Court while deciding the above-mentioned I.A. was whether Vedanta should be allowed to set up its refinery project, which involved the proposal for diversion of 58.943 ha. of forest land. CEC had, however, objected to the grant of clearance sought by Vedanta on the ground that the Refinery would be totally dependent on mining of bauxite from Niyamgiri Hills, Lanjigarh, which was the only vital wildlife habitat, part of which constituted elephant corridor and also on the ground that the said project would obstruct the proposed wildlife sanctuary and the residence of tribes like Dongaria Kondha.
6. The Court on 03.06.2006 directed the MoEF to consult the experts/organizations and submit a report. MoEF appointed Central Mining Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI), Ranchi to study the social impact of ground vibration on hydro-geological characteristics, including ground propensity, permeability, flow of natural resources etc. CMPDI submitted its report on 20.10.2006. MoEF appointed the Wildlife Institute of India(WII), Dehradun to study the impact of the Mining Project on the bio-diversity. WII submitted its report dated 14.06.2006 and the supplementary report dated 25.10.2006 before the MOEF. Reports of CMPDI, WII were all considered by the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) on 27.10.2006 after perusing the above mentioned reports approved the proposal of OMC, for diversion of 660.749 ha. of forest land for the mining of bauxite in Kalahandi and Rayagada Districts subject to the conditions laid down byWII.
7. The State of Orissa had brought to the notice of this Court about the lack of basic infrastructure facilities in the Tribal areas of both the districts, so also the abject poverty in which the local people were living in Lanjigarh Tehsil, including the tribal people, and also the lack of proper housing, hospitals, schools etc. But this Court was not agreeable to clear the project, at the instance of Vedanta, however, liberty was granted to M/s. Sterlite to move the Court if they would agree to comply with the modalities suggested by the Court. Following were the modalities suggested by the Court, while disposing of the Vedanta case on 23.11.2007:
"(i) State of Orissa shall float a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for scheduled area development of Lanjigarh Project in which the stakeholders shall be State of Orissa, OMC Ltd. and M/s SIIL. Such SPV shall be incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The accounts of SPV will be prepared by the statutory auditors of OMC Ltd. and they shall be audited by the Auditor General for State of Orissa every year. M/s SIIL will deposit, every year commencing from 1-4-2007, 5% of its annual profits before tax and interest from Lanjigarh Project or Rs 10 crores whichever is higher for Scheduled Area Development with the said SPV and it shall be the duty of the said SPV to account for the expenses each year. The annual report of SPV shall be submitted to CEC every year. If CEC finds non-utilisation or misutilisation of funds the same shall be brought to the notice of this Court. While calculating annual profits before tax and interest M/s SIIL shall do so on the basis of the market value of the material which is sold by OMC Ltd. to M/s SIIL or its nominee.
(ii) In addition to what is stated above, M/s SIIL shall pay NPV of Rs 55 crores and Rs 50.53 crores towards Wildlife Management Plan for Conservation and Management of Wildlife around Lanjigarh bauxite mine and Rs 12.20 crores towards tribal development? In addition, M/s SIIL shall also bear expenses towards compensatory afforestation.
(iii) A statement shall be filed by M/s SIIL with CEC within eight weeks from today stating number of persons who shall be absorbed on permanent basis in M/s SIIL including land-losers. They shall give categories in which they would be permanently absorbed. The list would also show particulars of persons who would be employed by the contractors of M/s SIIL and the period for which they would be employed.
(iv) The State Government has the following suggestions on this issue:
1. The user agency shall undertake demarcation of the lease area on the ground using four feet high cement concrete pillars with serial number, forward and back bearings and distance from pillar to pillar.
2. The user agency shall make arrangements for mutation and transfer of equivalent non-forest land identified for compensatory a forestation to the ownership of the State Forest Department.
3. The State Forest Department will take up compensatory afforestation at Project cost with suitable indigenous species and will declare the said area identified for compensatory afforestation as "protected forest" under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 for the purpose of management.
4. The user agency shall undertake rehabilitation of Project-affected families, if any, as per the Orissa Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2006.
5. The user agency shall undertake phased reclamation of mined-out area. All overburden should be used for back-filling and reclamation of the mined-out areas. 6. The user agency shall undertake fencing of the safety zone area and endeavour for protection as well as regeneration of the said area. It shall deposit funds with the State Forest Department for the protection and regeneration of the safety zone area.
7. Adequate soil conservation measures shall be undertaken by the lessee on the overburdened dumps to prevent contamination of stream flow.
8. The user agency should undertake comprehensive study on hydrogeology of the area and the impact of mining on the surrounding water quality and stream flow at regular interval and take effective measures so as to maintain the pre-mining water condition as far as possible.
9. The user agency should undertake a comprehensive study of the wildlife available in the area in association with institutes of repute like Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, etc. and shall prepare a site specific comprehensive wildlife management plan for conservation and management of the wildlife in the Project impact area under the guidance of the Chief Wildlife Warden of the State.
10. The user agency shall deposit the NPV of the forest land sought for diversion for undertaking mining operations.
11. The user agency shall prepare a comprehensive plan for the development of tribals in the Project impact area taking into consideration their requirements for health, education, communication, recreation, livelihood and cultural lifestyle.
12. As per the policy of the State Government, the user agency shall earmark 5% of the net profit accrued in the Project to be spent for the development of health, education, communication, irrigation and agriculture of the said scheduled area within a radius of 50 km.
13. Controlled blasting may be used only in exigencies wherever needed to minimise the impact of noise on wildlife of the area.
14. The user agency shall undertake development of greenery by way of plantation of suitable indigenous species in all vacant areas within the Project.
15. Trees shall be felled from the diverted area only when it is necessary with the strict supervision of the State Forest Department at the cost of the Project.
16. The forest land diverted shall be non-transferable. Whenever the forest land is not required, the same shall be surrendered to the State Forest Department under intimation to Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. If M/s SIIL, State of Orissa and OMC Ltd. jointly agree to comply with the above rehabilitation package, this Court may consider granting of clearance to the Project.
Conclusion 12. If M/s SIIL is agreeable to the afore stated rehabilitation package then they shall be at liberty to move this Court by initiating a proper application. This Court is not against the Project in principle. It only seeks safeguards by which we are able to protect nature and sub serve development. IAs are disposed of accordingly. However, we once again reiterate that the applications filed by M/s VAL stand dismissed."The Court opined that if Sterlite, State of Orissa and OMC jointly agree to comply with the "Rehabilitation Package", the Court might consider granting clearance to the project. Stating so, all the applications were disposed of, the order of which is reported in (2008) 2 SCC 222.
8. M/s. Sterlite, 3rd respondent herein, then moved an application -being I.A. No. 2134 of 2007 - before this Court, followed by affidavits, wherein it was stated that M/s. Sterlite, State of Orissa and OMC had unconditionally accepted the terms and conditions and modalities suggested by this Court under the caption "Rehabilitation Package" in its earlier order dated 23.12.2007. Siddharth Nayak, who was the petitioner in WP No.549/07, then filed a Review Petition No. 100/2008 and sought review of the order dated 23.11.2007 passed by this Court stating that this court had posed a wrong question while deciding I.A. No. 2134 of 2007 and pointed out that Alumina Refinery was already set up by Vedanta and production commenced and the principal question which came up before this Court was with regard to the ecological and cultural impact of mining in the Niyamgiri Hills. Further, it was also pointed out that if Sterlite was allowed to mine in the Niyamgiri Hills, it would affect the identity, culture and other customary rights of Dongaria Kondh. Review Petition was, however, dismissed by this Court on 07.05.2008.
9. This Court then passed the final order in Sterlite case on 8.8.2008,the operative portion of which reads as follows: "13. For the above reasons and in the light of the affidavits filed by SIIL, OMCL and the State of Orissa, accepting the rehabilitation package, suggested in our order dated 23-11-2007, we hereby grant clearance to the forest diversion proposal for diversion of 660.749 ha of forest land to undertake bauxite mining on Niyamgiri Hills in Lanjigarh. The next step would be for MoEF to grant its approval in accordance with law.
"10. MOEF, later, considered the request of the State of Orissa dated28.2.2005 seeking prior approval of MOEF for diversion of 660.749 ha of forest land for mining of bauxite ore in Lanjigarh Bauxite Mines in favour of OMC, in accordance with Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,1980. MOEF, after considering the proposal of the State Government and referring to the recommendations of FAC dated 27.10.2006, agreed in principle for diversion of the above mentioned forest land, subject tovarious conditions which are as follows:
i) The Compensatory Afforestation shall be raised over non- forest land, equal in extent to the forest land proposed to be diverted, at the project cost. The User Agency shall transfer the cost of Compensatory Afforestation to the State Forest Department.
ii) The non-forest land identified for Compensatory Afforestation shall be declared as Reserved Forests under Indian Forest Act, 1927.
iii) The User Agency shall create fence and maintain a safety zone around the mining area. The User Agency will deposit fund with the Forest Department for creation, protection and regeneration of safety zone area and also will have to bear the cost of afforestation over one and a half time of the safety zone area in degraded forest elsewhere.
iv) The reclamation of mines shall be carried out concurrently and should be regularly monitored by the State Forest Department.
v) RCC pillars of 4 feet height shall be erected by the User Agency at the project cost to demarcate the area and the pillars will be marked with forward and back bearings.
vi) The State Government shall charge Net Present Value (NPV) from the User Agency for the entire diverted forest land, as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and as per the guidelines issued vide Ministry of Environment and Forests letters No. 5-1/98-FC(Pt.II) dated 18th September 2003 and 22nd September 2003.
vii) As per Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 23.11.2007 and 08.08.2008, M/s SIIL shall pay NPV of Rs.55 crores.
viii) An undertaking from the User Agency shall also be obtained stating that in case the rates of NPV are revised upwards, the additional/differential amount shall be paid by the User Agency.
ix) As per Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 23.11.2007 and 08.08.2-008, M/s SIIL shall pay Rs.50.53 crores towards Wildlife Management Plan for Conservation and Management of Wildlife around Lanjigarh bauxite mine.
x) As per Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 23.11.2007 and 08.08.2-008, M/s SIIL is required to contribute Rs.12.20 crores towards tribal development apart from payment of NPV and apart from contribution to the Management of Wildlife around Lanjigarh Bauxite Mine. Moreover, while allocating CAMPA Funds the said amount of Rs.12.20 crores shall be earmarked specifically for tribal development.
xi) The State Government shall deposit all the funds with the Ad- hoc Body of Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) in Account No. CA 1585 of Corporation Bank (A Government of India Enterprise) Block-II, Ground Floor, CGO Complex, Phase-I, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003, as per the instructions communicated vide letter N.5 - 2/2006-PC dated 20.05.2006.
xii) As per Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 23.11.2007 and 08.08.2-008, M/s SIIL shall deposit 5% of its annual profits before tax and interest from Lanjigarh Project of Rs.10 crores whichever is higher as contribution for Scheduled Area Development. The contribution is to be made every year commencing from 01.04.2007. The State of Orissa shall float a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for scheduled area development of Lanjigarh Project in which the stake-holders shall be State of Orissa, OMC Ltd. and M/s SIIL. Such SPV shall be incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Accounts of SPC shall be prepared by the Statutory auditors of OMC Ltd and they shall be audited by the Auditor General for State of Orissa every year.
xiii) The permission granted under FC Act shall be co-terminus with the mining lease granted under MMRD Act or any other relevant Act.
xiv) Tree felling shall be done in a phased manner to coincide with the phasing of area to be put to mining with a view to minimizing clear felling. The felling will always be carried out under strict supervision of State Forest Department. xv) All efforts shall be made by the User Agency and the State Government to prevent soil erosion and pollution of rivers/nallas/streams etc.
xvi) The Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) shall be modified accordingly as suggested by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun and shall be implemented by the State Government/User Agency at the project cost. The progress of implementation of the WMP shall be regularly monitored by the WILL and Regional Office, Bhubaneshwar.
xvii) Any other condition that the CCF (Central), Regional Office, Bhubaneshwar / the State Forest Department may impose from time to time for protection and improvement of flora and fauna in the forest area, shall also be applicable.
xviii) All other provisions under different Acts, rules, and regulations including environmental clearance shall be complied with before transfer of forest land.
xix) The lease will remain in the name of Orissa Mining Corporation (OMCL) and if any change has to be done, it will require prior approval of the Central Government as per guidelines.
xx) The present forest clearance will be subject to the final outcome of the Writ petition No. 202 of 1995 from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Court's order dated 23.11.2007 and 08.08.2008.
xxi) Other standard conditions as applicable to proposals related to mining shall apply in the instant case also."MOEF, then, vide its letter dated 11.12.2008 informed the State of Orissa that it had, in principle, agreed for diversion of 660.749 ha. of forestland for mining bauxite in favour of OMC, subject to fulfillment of the above mentioned conditions, and after getting the compliance report from the State Government. Order dated 11.12.2008 was slightly modified on31.12.2008. It was further ordered that the transfer of forest land to the user agency should not be effected by the State Government till formal orders approving diversion of forest land were issued.
11. MoEF then granted environmental clearance to OMC vide its proceedings dated 28.04.2009 subject to various conditions including the following conditions: "(iii) Environmental clearance is subject to grant of forestry clearance. Necessary forestry clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 672.018 ha forest land involved in the project shall be obtained before starting mining operation in that area. No mining shall be undertaken in the forest area without obtaining requisite prior forestry clearance."The State Government then forwarded the final proposal to the MoEF vide itsletter dated 10.08.2009 stating that the user agency had complied with all the conditions stipulated in the letter of MoEF dated 11.12.2008. On the Forest Rights Act, the Government letter stated as follows:
"Provisions of Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The Govt. of India, MOEF vide their letter dated 28.04.2009 have accorded environmental clearance to Lanjigarh Bauxite Mining Project. This letter of Govt. of India, MOEF puts on record that there is no habitation in the mining lease area on the plateau top and no resettlement and rehabilitation is involved. Public hearing for the project was held on 07.02.2003 for Kalahandi District and on 17.03.2003 for Rayagada District.
In both the cases, the project has been recommended. Copies of the public hearing proceedings have already been submitted to Govt. of India, MOEF along with forest diversion proposal. This project was also challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the ground that it violates the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 WP (C) No. 549 of 2007 was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by one Sri Siddharth Nayak challenging the project on the above issue. After examining different aspects of the writ petition in IA No. 2081-2082 in WP (C) No. 549/2007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had cleared the project by way of disposing the Writ Petition vide their order dated 23.11.2007. Subsequently, Hon'ble Supreme Court had finally cleared the project vide their order dated 08.08.2008. In view of the above position and orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, no further action in this regard is proposed.
"12. State of Orissa's final proposal was then placed before the FAC on4.11.2009. FAC recommended that the final clearance would be considered only after ascertaining of the community rights on forest land and after the process for establishing such rights under Forest Rights Act was completed. FAC also decided to constitute an Expert Group to carry out a site inspection. Consequently, on 1.1.2010, a three-member Team composed of Dr. Usha Ramanathan and two others, was constituted to consider and make recommendations to MOEF on the proposal submitted by OMC. The Team carried out the site inspection during the months of January and February, 2010 and submitted three individual reports to MOEF on 25.2.2010 which were not against the project as such, but suggested an in-depth study on the application of the Forest Rights Act. FAC also, on 16.4.2010, considered all the three reports and recommended that a Special Committee, under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, be constituted to look into the issues relating to the violation of Tribal rights and the settlement of Forest rights under the Forest Rights Act.
13. MOEF then met on 29.6.2010 and decided to constitute a team composed of specialists to look into the settlement of rights on forest dwellers and the "Primitive Tribal Groups" under the Forest Rights Act and the impact of the Project on wildlife and biodiversity in the surrounding areas. Consequently, a 4-member Committee was constituted headed by Dr. Naresh Saxena to study and assess the impacts of various rights and to make a detailed investigation. The Committee, after conducting several site visits and making detailed enquiries submitted its report to MOEF on16.8.2010.
14. The State Government then submitted their written objection on17.08.2010 to the MoEF on the Saxena Committee Report and requested that an opportunity of hearing be given to it before taking any decision on the report. MoEF, however, called a meeting of FAC on 20.8.2010 and placed the Saxena Committee report before FAC, for consideration. Minutes of the Committee meeting was released on 23.8.2010, stating that the Primitive Tribal Groups were not consulted in the process of seeking project clearance and also noticed the violation of the provisions of Forest Rights Act, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Environmental Protection Act,1986 and also the impact on ecological and biodiversity values of the Niyamgiri hills upon which the Dongaria Kondh and Kutia Kondh depend. FAC opined that it was a fit case for applying the precautionary principle to obviate the irreparable damage to the affected people and recommended for the temporary withdrawal of the in-principle/State I approval accorded.FAC recommended that the State Government be heard before a final decision is taken by the MoEF.
15. The recommendations of the FAC dated 23.8.2010 and Saxena Committee report were considered by MOEF and the request for Stage-II Clearance was rejected on 24.8.2010, stating as follows: "VIII. Factors Dictating Decision on Stage-II Clearance I have considered three broad factors while arriving at my decision.
1. The Violation of the Rights of the Tribal Groups including the Primitive Tribal Groups and the Dalit Population. The blatant disregard displayed by the project proponents with regard to rights of the tribals and primitive tribal groups dependant on the area for their livelihood, as they have proceeded to seek clearance is shocking. Primitive Tribal Groups have specifically been provided for in the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and this case should leave no one in doubt that they will enjoy full protection of their rights under the law. The narrow definition of the Project Affected People by the State Government runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Simply because they did not live on the hills does not mean that they have no rights there.
The Forest Rights Act, 2006 specifically provides for such rights but these were not recognized and were sought to be denied. Moreover, the fate of the Primitive Tribal Groups need some emphasis, as very few communities in India in general and Orissa in particular come under the ambit of such a category. Their dependence on the forest being almost complete, the violation of the specific protections extended to their "habitat and habitations" by the Forest Rights Act, 2006 are simply unacceptable. This ground by itself has to be foremost in terms of consideration when it comes to the grant of forest or environmental clearance. The four-member committee has highlighted repeated instances of violations. One also cannot ignore the Dalits living in the area. While they may technically be ineligible to receive benefits under the FRA 2006, they are such an inextricable part of the society that exists that it would be impossible to disentitle them as they have been present for over five decades.
The Committee has also said on p.40 of their report that "even if the Dalits have no claims under the FRA the truth of their de facto dependence on the Niyamgiri forests for the past several decades can be ignored by the central and state governments only at the cost of betrayal of the promise of inclusive growth and justice and dignity for all Indians". This observation rings true with the MoE & F and underscores the MoE & F's attempt to ensure that any decision taken is not just true to the law in letter but also in spirit.
2. Violations of the Environmental Protection Act 1986:
i) Observations of the Saxena Committee and MoE & F Records: In additional to its findings regarding the settlement of rights under the FRA 2006, the four-member Committee has also observed, with reference to the environmental clearance granted for the aluminum refinery, on p.7 of its Report dated 16th August 2010 that:
"The company/s Vedanta Alumina Limited has already proceeded with construction activity for its enormous expansion project that would increase its capacity six fold from 1 Mtpa to 6 Mtpa without obtaining environmental clearance as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 under the EPA. This amounts to a serious violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act. This expansion, its extensive scale and advanced nature, is in complete violation of the EPA and is an expression of the contempt with which this company treats the laws of the land." I have reviewed the records of the MoE & F and have found no documentation which establishes such activity to have been granted clearance. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that such requirement was waived by the Ministry.
The TORs for the expansion of the project from 1 million tones to 6 million tones were approved in March 2008. No further right has been granted in any form by the Ministry to the project proponents to proceed with the expansion. While any expansion without prior EC is a violation of the EIA Notification/EPA 1986 this, itself, is not a minor expansion and is therefore a most serious transgression of the EPA 1986. There also appear to have been other acts of violation that emerge from a careful perusal of the evidence at hand. This is not the first act of violation. On March 19th, 2003 M/s Sterlite filed an application for environmental clearance from the MoE & F for the refinery. In the application it was stated that no forest land is involved in the project and that there was no reserve forest within a radius of 10 kms of the project site.
Thereafter on September 22nd, 2004, environment clearance was granted by the MoE & F for the refinery project. While granting the environmental clearance, the MoE & F was unaware of the fact that the application for forest clearance was also pending since the environmental clearance letter clearly stated that no forest land was involved in the project. In March 2005, in proceedings before itself, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) too questioned the validity of the environmental clearance granted by the MoE & F and requested the Ministry to withhold the forest clearance on the project till the issue is examined by the CEC and report is submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
ii) Case before the MEAA by the Dongaria Kondhs: After the grant of Environment Clearance, the local tribals and other concerned persons including the Dongaria Kondhs challenged the project before the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA). [Kumati Majhi and Ors Vs Ministry of Environment. and Forest, Srabbu Sikka and Ors. Vs Ministry of Environment and Forests, R Sreedhar Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forest, Prafulla Samantara Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ors Appeal No. 18, 19, 20 and 21 of 2009]. It is brought to my attention that this is the first time that the Dongaria Kondha have directly challenged the project in any Court of law.
The Appeals highlighted the several violations in the Environmental Clearance process. Some of the key charges raised were that the full Environmental Impact Assessment Report was not made available to the Public before the public hearing, different EIA reports made available to the public and submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the EIA conducted was a rapid EIA undertaken during the monsoon months. The matter is reserved for judgment before the NEAA. iii) Monitoring Report of the Eastern Regional Office dated 25th May, 2010: On 25th May 2010, Dr. VP Upadhyay (Director 'S') of the Eastern Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forests submitted his report to the MoE & F which listed various violations in para 2 of the monitoring report.
They observed: a. "M/s Vedanta Alumina Limited has already proceeded with construction activity for expansion project without obtaining environmental clearance as per provisions of EIA Notification 2006 that amounts to violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act." b. "The project has not established piezometers for monitoring of ground water quality around red mud and ash disposal ponds; thus, the condition no. 5 of Specific Condition of the clearance letter is being violated." c. "The condition no. Ii of General Condition of environmental clearance has been violated by starting expansion activities without prior approval from the Ministry." Furthermore all bauxite for the refinery was to be sourced from mines which have already obtained environmental clearance. The Report listed 14 mines from which Bauxite was being sourced by the project proponents.
However out of these 11 had not been granted a mining license while 2 had only received TORs and only 1 had received clearance. 3. Violations under the Forest Conservation Act: The Saxena Committee has gone into great detail highlighting the various instances of violations under the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. All these violations coupled with the resultant impact on the ecology and biodiversity of the surrounding area further condemn the actions of the project proponent. Not only are these violations of a repeating nature but they are instances of willful concealment of information by the project proponent. IX. The Decision on Stage-II Clearance The Saxena Committee's evidence as reviewed by the FAC and read by me as well is compelling. The violations of the various legislations, especially the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Scheduled Tribes and Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, appear to be too egregious to be glossed over. Furthermore, a mass of new and incriminating evidence has come to light since the Apex court delivered its judgment on August 8th, 2008.
Therefore, after careful consideration of the facts at hand, due deliberation over all the reports submitted and while upholding the recommendation of the FAC, I have come to the following conclusions:
1. The Stage II forest clearance for the OMC and Sterlite bauxite mining project on the Niyamgiri Hills in Lanjigarh, Kalahandi and Rayagada districts of Orissa cannot be granted. Stage-II Forest Clearance therefore stands rejected.
2. Since forest clearance is being rejected, the environmental clearance for this mine is inoperable.
3. It appears that the project proponent is sourcing bauxite from a large number of mines in Jharkhand for the one million tonne alumina refinery and are not in possession of valid environmental clearance. This matter is being examined separately.
4. Further, a show-cause notice is being issued b y the MoE & F to the project proponent as to why the environmental clearance for the one million tonnes per annum alumina refinery should not be cancelled.
5. A show-cause notice is also being issued to the project proponent as to why the terms of reference (TOR) for the EIA report for the expansion from one million tones to six million tones should not be withdrawn. Meanwhile, the TOR and the appraisal process for the expansion stands suspended. Separately the MoE & F is in the process of examining what penal action should be initiated against the project proponents for the violations of various laws as documented exhaustively by the Saxena Committee. On the issues raised by the Orissa State Government, I must point out that while customary rights of the Primitive Tribal Groups are not recognized in the National Forest Policy, 1988 they are an integral part of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. An Act passed by Parliament has greater sanctity than a Policy Statement.
This is apart from the fact that the Forest Rights Act came into force eighteen years after the National Forest Policy. On the other points raised by the State Government officials, on the procedural aspects of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, I expect that the joint Committee set up by the MoE & F and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs would give them due consideration. The State Government officials were upset with the observations made by the Saxena Committee on their role in implementing the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Whether State Government officials have connived with the violations is a separate issue and is not relevant to my decision. I am prepared to believe that the State Government officials were attempting to discharge their obligations to the best of their abilities and with the best of intentions.
The State Government could well contest many of the observations made by the Saxena Committee. But this will not fundamentally alter the fact that serious violations of various laws have indeed taken place. The primary responsibility of any Ministry is to enforce the laws that have been passed by Parliament. For the MoE & F, this means enforcing the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, the Scheduled Tribes and Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and other laws. It is in this spirit that this decision has been taken."The order dated 24.8.2010 was communicated by MOEF to the State of Orissa vide its letter dated 30.8.2010, the legality of those orders are the subject matter of this writ petition.
16. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for OMC, referred to the earlier judgments of this Court in Vedanta as well as Sterlite and submitted that those judgments are binding on the parties with regard to the various questions raised and decided and also to the questions which ought to have been raised and decided. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that MOEF itself, after the above mentioned two judgments, had accorded Stage-I clearance vide its proceeding dated11.12.2008 and that the State of Orissa vide its letter dated 10.8.2009 had informed MOEF of the compliance of the various conditions stipulated in the Stage-I clearance dated 11.12.2008. Consequently, there is no impediment in the MOEF granting Stage-II clearance for the project.
Learned senior counsel also submitted that the reasons stated by the FAC as well as the Saxena Committee are all untenable and have nothing to do with Bauxite Mining Project (BMP) undertaken by OMC. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the constitution of, initially, a 3-Member Committee and, later, a 4-Member Committee, was intended only to cancel the Stage-I clearance granted to the BMP in compliance with the judgment of this Court. Learned counsel also pointed out that the claim under the Forest Rights Act was also raised by Sidharth Nayak through a review petition, which was also rejected by this Court on 7.5.2008. Consequently, it would not be open to the parties to again raise the issues which fall under the Forest Rights Act.
17. Shri C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Orissa, submitted that various reasons stated by the MOEF for rejecting the Stage-II clearance are unsustainable in law as well as on facts. Learned senior counsel pointed out that reasons stated by the Saxena Committee as well as MOEF alleging violation of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986,are totally unrelated to the BMP. Learned senior counsel pointed out that Alumina Refinery is an independent project and the violation, if any, in respect of the same ought not to have been relevant criteria for the consideration of the grant of Stage-II clearance to the BMP, being granted to OMC. Referring to the Monitoring Report of Eastern Regional Office dated 25.5.2010, learned senior counsel pointed out that the findings recorded in that report are referable to 4th respondent and not to the mining project granted to OMC.
Learned senior counsel also submitted that Saxena Committee as well as MOEF has committed a factual error in taking into account the alleged legal occupation of 26.123 ha of village forestlands enclosed within the factory premises which has no connection with regard to the mining project, a totally independent project. Learned senior counsel also submitted that in the proposed mining area, there is no human habitation and that the individual habitation rights as well as the Community Forest Resource Rights for all villages located on the hill slope of the proposed mining lease area, have already been settled. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that the Gram Sabha has received several individual and community claims from Rayagada and Kalahandi Districts and they have settled by giving alternate lands.
18. Shri Sundaram also submitted that the Forest Rights Act deals with individual and community rights of the Tribals which does not, in any manner, expressly or impliedly, make any reference to the religious or spiritual rights protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and does not extend to the property rights. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the State Government continues to maintain and have ownership over the minerals and deposits beneath the forests and such rights have not been taken away by the Forest Rights Act and neither the Gram Sabha nor the Tribals can raise any ownership rights on minerals or deposits beneath the forest land.
19. Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rdrespondent - Sterlite, submitted that various grounds stated in Saxena report as well as in the order of MOEF dated 24.8.2010, were urged before this Court when Vedanda and Sterlite cases were decided and, it was following those judgments, that MOEF granted Stage-I approval on 11.12.2008on the basis of the recommendation of FAC. In compliance of the Stage-I clearance accorded by MOEF, SPV (OMC and Sterlite) undertook various works and completed, the details of the same have been furnished along with the written submissions filed on 21.1.2013. Learned senior counsel submitted that the attempt of the MOEF is to confuse the issue mixing up the Alumina Refinery Project with that of the Bauxite Mining Project undertaken by Sterlite and OMC through a SPV. The issues relating to expansion of refinery and alleged violation of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986,the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 etc. have nothing to do with the mining project undertaken by OMC and Sterlite. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that the rejection of the Stage-II clearance by MOEF is arbitrary and illegal.
20. Shri Mohan Parasaran, Solicitor General of India, at the outset, referred to the judgment of this Court in Sterlite and placed considerable reliance on para 13 of the judgment and submitted that while granting clearance by this Court for the diversion of 660.749 ha of forest land to undertake bauxite mining in Niyamgiri hills, left it to the MOEF to grant its approval in accordance with law. Shri Parasaran submitted that it is in accordance with law that the MOEF had constituted two Committees and the reports of the Committees were placed before the FAC, which is a statutory body constituted under Section 3 of the Forest Conservation Act. It was submitted that it was on the recommendation of the statutory body that MOEF had passed the impugned order dated 24.8.2010.
Further, it was pointed out that, though MOEF had granted the Stage-I clearance on 11.12.2008, it can still examine as to whether the conditions stipulated for the grant of Stage-I clearance had been complied with or not. For the said purpose, two Committees were constituted and the Saxena Committee in its report has noticed the violation of various conditions stipulated in the Stage-I clearance granted by MOEF on 11.12.2008. Shri Parasaran also submitted that the petitioner as well as 3rd respondent have also violated the provisions of the Forest Rights Act, the violation of which had been specifically noted by the Saxena Committee and accepted by MOEF. Referring to various provisions of the Forest Rights Act under Section3.1(i), 3.1(e) and Section 5 of the Act, it was submitted that concerned forest dwellers be treated not merely as right holders as statutory empowered with the authority to protect the Niyamgiri hills. Shri Parasaran also pointed out that Section 3.1(e) recognizes the right to community tenures of habitat and habitation for "primitive tribal groups" and that Dongaria Kondh have the right to grazing and the collection of mineral forest of the hills and that they have the customary right to worship the mountains in exercise of their traditional rights, which would be robed of if mining is permitted in Niyamgiri hills.
21. Shri Raj Panjwani, learned senior counsel appearing for thea pplicants in I.A. Nos. 4 and 6 of 2012, challenged the environmental clearance granted to OMC on 28.4.2009 by MOEF before the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) under Section 4(1) of the NEAA Act,1997, by filing Appeal Nos. 20 of 2009 and 21 of 2009 before NEAA. NEAA vide its order dated 15.5.2010 allowed the appeals and remitted the matter to MOEF to revisit the grant of environmental clearance to OMC on28.4.2009. Later, MOEF by its order dated 11.7.2011 has withdrawn the environmental clearance dated 28.4.2009 granted in favour of OMC and that OMC, without availing of the statutory remedy of the appeal, filed I.A. No.2 of 2011 in the present writ petition.
22. Shri Sanjay Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the applicants inI.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 2011, referred to the various provisions of the Forest Rights Act and the Rules and submitted that the determination of rights of scheduled tribes (STs)/other traditional forest dwellers (TFDs) have to be done by the Gram Sabha in accordance with the machinery provided under Section 6 of the Act. Learned counsel also submitted that the forest wealth vests in the STs and other TFDs and can be diverted only for the purpose mentioned in Section 3(3). Learned counsel also referred to the Saxena Committee report and submitted that the report clearly reveals the community rights as well as the various rights and claims of the primitive traditional forest dwellers. Learned counsel also submitted that if the mining is undertaken in Niyamgiri hills, it would destroy more than 7 sq.Km. of undisturbed forest land on the top of the mountain which is the abode of the Dongaria Kondh and their identity depends on the existence of Niyamgiri hills. Judicial Evaluation
23. We may, at the outset, point out that there cannot be any doubt that this Court in Vedanta case had given liberty to Sterlite to move this Court if they were agreeable to the "suggested rehabilitation package" in the order of this Court, in the event of which it was ordered that this Court might consider granting clearance to the project, but not to Vedanta. This Court in Vedanta case had opined that this Court was not against the project in principle, but only sought safeguards by which the Court would be able to protect the nature and sub-serve development.
24. The Sterlite, State of Orissa and OMC then unconditionally accepted the terms and conditions and modalities suggested by this Court in Vedanta under the caption "Rehabilitation Package" and they moved this Court by filing I.A. No. 2134 of 2007 and this Court accepted the affidavits filed by them and granted clearance to the diversion of 660.749 ha of forest land to undertake the bauxite mining in Niyamgiri Hills and ordered that MOEF would grant its approval in accordance with law.
25. MOEF, then considered the proposal of the State Government made under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and also the recommendations of the FAC and agreed in principle for the diversion of660.749 ha of forest land for mining of bauxite ore in Lanjigarh Bauxite Mines in favour of OMC, subject to 21 conditions vide its order 11.12.2008. One of the conditions was with regard to implementation of the Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) suggested by WII and another was with regard to the implementation of all other provisions of different Acts, including environmental clearance, before the transfer of the forest land. Further, it was also ordered that after receipt of the compliance report on fulfillment of the 21 conditions from the State of Orissa, formal approval would be issued under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
26. MOEF examined the application of the OMC for environmental clearance under Section 12 of the EIA Notification, 2006 read with para 2.1.1(i) of Circular dated 13.10.2006 and accorded environmental clearance for the "Lanjigarh Bauxite Mining Project" to OMC for an annual production capacity of 3 million tonnes of -bauxite by opencast mechanized method involving total mining lease area of 721.323 ha, subject to the conditions and environmental safeguards, vide its letter dated 28.4.2009. 32 special conditions and 16 general conditions were incorporated in that letter. It was ordered that failure to comply with any of the conditions might result in withdrawal of the clearance and attract action under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
It was specifically stated that the environmental clearance would be subject to grant of forestry clearance and that necessary clearance for diversion of 672.018 ha. Of forest land involved in the project be obtained before starting operation in that area and that no mining be undertaken in the forest area without obtaining prior forestry clearance. Condition No. XXX also stipulated that the project proponent shall take all precautionary measures during mining operation for conservation and protection of flora and fauna spotted in the study area and all safeguards measures brought out by the WMP prepared specific to the project site and considered by WII shall be effectively implemented.
Further, it was also ordered that all the recommendations made by WII for Wildlife Management be effectively implemented and that the project proponent would also comply with the standards prescribed by the State and Central Pollution Control Boards. Later, a corrigendum dated 14.7.2009was also issued by MOEF adding two other conditions - one special condition and another general condition.
27. State of Orissa vide its letter dated 10.8.2009 informed MOEF that the user agency had complied with the stipulations of Stage-I approval. Specific reference was made point by point to all the conditions stipulated in the letters of MOEF dated 11.12.2008 and 30.12.2008 and, in conclusion, the State Government has stated in their letter as follows: "In view of the above position of compliance by the User Agency to the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 8.8.2008 and stipulations of the Government of India, MOEF vide their Stage-I approval order dated 30.12.2008, the compliance is forwarded to the Government of India, MOEF to kindly examine the same and take further necessary steps in matters of according final approval for diversion of 660.749 ha of forest land for the project under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
"MOEF, it is seen, then placed the letter of the State Government dated10.8.2008 before the FAC and FAC on 4.11.2009 recommended that the final clearance be considered only after ascertaining the community rights of forest land and after the process for establishing such rights under the Forest Rights Act is completed. Dr. Usha Ramanathan Committee report was placed before the FAC on 16.4.2010 and FAC recommended that a Special Committee under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs be constituted to look into the issue relating to violation of tribal rights and the settlement of various rights under the Forest Rights Act, which led, as already indicated, to the constitution of the Saxena Committee report, based on which the MOEF passed the impugned order dated 24.8.2010.
28. FAC, in its meeting, opined that the final clearance under the Forest(Conservation) Act would be given, only after ascertaining the "Community Rights" on forest land and after the process of establishing such rights under the Forest Rights Act. After perusing the Usha Ramanathan report, FAC on 16.4.2010 recommended that a Special Committee be constituted to look into the issues relating to the alleged violation of rights under the Forest Rights Act. MOEF, then on 29.6.2010 constituted the Saxena Committee and the Committee after conducting an enquiry submitted its report which was placed before the FAC on 20.8.2010 and FAC noticed prima facie violation of the Forest Rights Act and the Forest (Conservation) Act.
29. Petitioner has assailed the order of MoEF dated 24.08.2010 as an attempt to reopen matters that had obtained finality. Further, it is also submitted that the order wrongly cites the violation of certain conditions of environmental clearance by "Alumina Refinery Project" as grounds for denial of Stage II clearance to OMC for its "Bauxite Mining Project". The contention is based on the premise that the two Projects are totally separate and independent of each other and the violation of any statutory provision or a condition of environmental clearance by one cannot be a relevant consideration for grant of Stage II clearance to the other.
30. Petitioner's assertion that the Alumina Refinery Project and the Bauxite Mining Project are two separate and independent projects, cannot be accepted as such, since there are sufficient materials on record to show that the two projects make an integrated unit. In the two earlier orders of this Court (in the Vedanta case and the Sterlite case) also the two Projects are seen as comprising a single unit. Quite contrary to the case of the petitioner, it can be strongly argued that the Alumina Refinery Project and Bauxite Mining Project are interdependent and inseparably linked together and, hence, any wrong doing by Alumina Refinery Project may cast a reflection on the Bauxite Mining Project and may be a relevant consideration for denial of Stage II clearance to the Bauxite Mining Project. In this Judgment, however, we do not propose to make any final pronouncement on that issue but we would keep the focus mainly on the rights of the Scheduled Tribes and the "Traditional Forest Dwellers" under the Forest Rights Act. STs and TFDs:
31. Scheduled Tribe, as such, is not defined in the Forest Rights Act, but the word "Traditional Forest Dweller" has been defined under Section2(o) as any member or community who has at least three generations prior to the 13th day of December, 2005 primarily resided in and who depend on the forest or forests land for bona fide livelihood needs. Article 366(25) of the Constitution states that STs means such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as a redefined under Article 342 to be the Scheduled Tribes. The President of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution, has made the Constitution (Schedule Tribes) Order, 1950.Part XII of the Order refers to the State of Orissa. Serial No. 31 refersto Dongaria Kondh, Kutia Kandha etc.
32. Before we examine the scope of the Forest Rights Act, let us examine, how the rights of indigenous people are generally viewed under our Constitution and the various International Conventions. Constitutional Rights and Conventions:
33. Article 244 (1) of the Constitution of India which appears in Part X provides that the administration of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in States (other than Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura) shall be according to the provisions of the Fifth Schedule and Clause (2) states that Sixth Schedule applies to the tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. Evidently, the object of the Fifth Schedule and the Regulations made there under is to preserve tribal autonomy, their cultures and economic empowerment to ensure social, economic and political justice for the preservation of peace and good Governance in the Scheduled Area. This Court in Samatha v. Arunachal Pradesh (1997) 8 SCC 191 ruled that all relevant clauses in the Schedule and the Regulations should be harmoniously and widely be read as to elongate the Constitutional objectives and dignity of person to the Scheduled Tribes and ensuring distributive justice as an integral scheme thereof. The Court noticed that agriculture is the only source of livelihood for the Scheduled Tribes apart from collection and sale of minor forest produce to supplement their income. Land is their most important natural and valuable asset and imperishable endowment from which the tribal derive their sustenance, social status, economic and social equality, permanent place of abode, work and living. Consequently, tribes have great emotional attachments to their lands.
34. Part B of the Fifth Schedule [Article 244(1)] speaks of the administration and control of Schedules Areas and Scheduled Tribes. Para 4thereof speaks of Tribes Advisory Council. Tribes Advisory Council used to exercise the powers for those Scheduled Areas where Panchayat Raj system had not been extended. By way of the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act,1992, Part IX was inserted in the Constitution of India. Article 243-B of Part IX of the Constitution mandated that there shall be panchayats at village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of that Part. Article 243-C of Chapter IX refers to the composition of Panchayats. Article 243-M (4)(b) states that Parliament may, by law, extend the provisions of Part IX to the Scheduled Areas and the Tribal areas and to work out the modalities for the same.
The Central Government appointed Bhuria Committee to undertake a detailed study and make recommendations as to whether the Panchayat Raj system could be extended to Scheduled Areas. The Committee submitted its report on 17.01.1995 and favoured democratic, decentralization in Scheduled Areas. Based on the recommendations, the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996(for short 'PESA Act') was enacted by the Parliament in the year 1996,extending the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution relating to Panchayats to the Scheduled Areas. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act reads as follows: "There have been persistent demands from prominent leaders of the Scheduled Areas for extending the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution to these Areas so that Panchayati Raj Institutions may be established there.
Accordingly, it is proposed to introduce a Bill to provide for the extension of the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution to the Scheduled Areas with certain modifications providing that, among other things, the State legislations that may be made shall be in consonance with the customary law, social and religious practices and traditional management practices of community resources; The offices of the Chairpersons in the panchayats at all levels shall be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes; the reservations of seats at every panchayat for the Scheduled Tribes shall not be less than one-third of the total number of seats.
"35. This court had occasion to consider the scope of PESA Act when the constitutional validity of the proviso to section 4(g) of the PESA Act and few sections of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 were challenged in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, (2010) 4 SCC 50 and this Court upheld the Constitutional validity.
36. Section 4 of the PESA Act stipulates that the State legislation on Panchayats shall be made in consonance with the customary law, social and religious practices and traditional management practices of community resources. Clause (d) of Section states that every Gram Sabha shall be competent to safeguard and preserve the traditions and customs of the people, their cultural identity, community resources and the customary mode of dispute resolution.
Further it also states in clause (i) of Section 4that the Gram Sabha or the Panchayats at the appropriate level shall be consulted before making the acquisition of land in the Scheduled Areas for development projects and before re-settling or rehabilitating persons affected by such projects in the Scheduled Areas and that the actual planning and implementation of the projects in the Scheduled Areas, shall be coordinated at the State level. Sub-clause (k) of Section 4 states that the recommendations of the Gram Sabha or the Panchayats at the appropriate level shall be made mandatory prior to grant of prospective licence or mining lease for minor minerals in the Scheduled Areas. Panchayat has also endowed with the powers and authority necessary to function as institutions of Self-Government.
37. The customary and cultural rights of indigenous people have also been the subject matter of various international conventions. International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No.107) was the first comprehensive international instrument setting forth the rights of indigenous and tribal populations which emphasized the necessity for the protection of social, political and cultural rights of indigenous people. Following that there were two other conventions ILO Convention (No.169) and Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 and United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), 2007, India is a signatory only to the ILO Convention(No. 107).
38. Apart from giving legitimacy to the cultural rights by 1957Convention, the Convention on the Biological Diversity (CBA) adopted at the Earth Summit (1992) highlighted necessity to preserve and maintain knowledge , innovation and practices of the local communities relevant for conservation and sustainable use of bio-diversity, India is a signatory to CBA. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development Agenda 21 and Forestry principle also encourage the promotion of customary practices conducive to conservation. The necessity to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources have also been recognized by United Nations in the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. STs and other TFDs residing in the Scheduled Areas have a right to maintain their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands.
39. Many of the STs and other TFDs are totally unaware of their rights. They also experience lot of difficulties in obtaining effective access to justice because of their distinct culture and limited contact with mainstream society. Many a times, they do not have the financial resources to engage in any legal actions against development projects undertaken in their abode or the forest in which they sta
