LI Network
Published on: January 14, 2024 at 10:30 IST
The Supreme Court, recognizing the historical significance of Chittorgarh Fort in Rajasthan, has issued directives for its safeguarding, explicitly prohibiting blasting activities within a 5-kilometer radius.
The Court’s decision, announced on Friday (January 12), aims to protect the fort from potential damage caused by limestone mining or other mineral extraction activities.
Considering the continuous exposure of the ancient monument to peak particle velocity (PPV) resulting from blasting, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti emphasized that mining through blasting or explosive methods within a five-kilometer radius from the fort’s compound wall is strictly prohibited.
The Court highlighted that it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove the case by presenting evidence.
The Court also stated that manual or mechanical mining operations remain permissible within the specified radius, provided the lessee possesses a valid lease under the law.
In addition to the immediate measures, the Supreme Court directed the establishment of an Expert Committee within two weeks. This committee, to be formed by the Chairman of the Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines) in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, will conduct a comprehensive study on environmental pollution and assess the impact of blasting operations beyond the 5-kilometer radius. The committee is expected to consist of a team of multi-disciplinary experts.
Background:
The Court’s intervention came in response to the granting of mining leases by the Rajasthan government in areas surrounding Chittorgarh Fort, known for its rich limestone deposits. Concerns arose due to the extraction of minerals using explosives and blasting operations, posing a threat to the fort’s structural integrity.
Residents of Chittorgarh approached the Rajasthan High Court, seeking a halt to blasting activities within a 10-kilometer radius of the fort.
The High Court’s order prohibited mining and blasting within the specified radius and imposed compensation of INR 5 crores for the restoration of the fort. The mine holders, including petitioner Birla Corporation, were instructed to contribute to the restoration costs.
Challenging the order, Birla Corporation, possessing a mining lease located approximately 4.5 kilometers from the fort’s boundary, approached the Supreme Court.
The Court, while issuing notice, observed that the High Court did not specifically address a complete ban on mining operations around the fort without blasting involvement.
Observations:
The Supreme Court, after examining reports from Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee (CBRI, Roorkee), expressed concerns about the conflict between mineral exploitation and community interests. The Court noted discrepancies between the CBRI report and another report from the Ministry of Coal and Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Mining Research Cell.
The court emphasized that advancements in scientific and technological techniques should not be ignored unless proven ineffective through a detailed study. It favored the formation of a third-party committee with expertise in the relevant fields to conduct an independent study.
Furthermore, the court addressed additional factors contributing to the fort’s deterioration, such as money menace, tourist footfall, vegetation growth, and defacement of statues.
The Court directed the Rajasthan government and the State Pollution Control Board to strictly implement Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, to tackle unauthorized littering and monkey menace.
The Court concluded by emphasizing the multi-dimensional approach needed to preserve Chittorgarh Fort, stating, “The Chittorgarh Fort, a heritage monument, must be maintained and preserved under all circumstances.”
Before concluding, the court granted authority to the Rajasthan government and the State Pollution Control Board to halt blasting operations if the study indicates unexpected damage to fort structures. The expenses of the study were ordered to be borne by Birla Corporation.
Case Title: Birla Corporation Limited through its Managing Director v. Bhanwar Singh and Others, S.L.P.(C) No. 21211 of 2012 (and connected matters)
