On Thursday, the Supreme Court decided not to get involved with a court order stopping all mining in Bageshwar, Uttarakhand. This decision came after serious concerns about environmental damage and safety risks were raised in a report. The Chief Justice, along with other justices, called the report “really serious” and told mining companies to take their complaints back to the Uttarakhand High Court.
A lawyer for one of the mining companies argued that the report was prepared by lawyers and not expert scientists. But the Supreme Court judges disagreed, saying the report was well done and had important findings. Another lawyer mentioned that a similar case is being looked at by the National Green Tribunal, but the Supreme Court insisted that the miners should go back to the High Court, pointing out that the order was only temporary.
When one lawyer asked to withdraw their petition but keep the option to come back to the Supreme Court later, the judges firmly said, “No.” The court then allowed the request to withdraw but made it clear they would not consider any challenges against the High Court’s ruling.
This disagreement began with an order from the Uttarakhand High Court on January 6. The High Court had prohibited mining in Bageshwar after discovering serious environmental issues from a judicial report, which it described as “shocking.” The High Court criticized local officials for ignoring illegal mining practices.
The report showed that too much mining had created dangerous crevasses that could lead to landslides, putting people’s lives at risk. The judges emphasized that ongoing mining would threaten human lives, especially in areas where houses were built on steep hills nearby. They remarked, “The scary photos show huge cracks that could lead to landslides, which could claim many lives.”
Because of this, the High Court ordered a stop to mining and called important state officials to ensure compliance with its orders.
On January 10, the High Court sent notices to 160 mining companies, saying it was their responsibility to compensate affected villagers, not the government. The court opposed the state’s offer to use public funds for compensation, agreeing with advisor Dushyant Mainali, who stated that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for damages caused by businesses.
The High Court also noted the unauthorized presence of heavy machinery at mining sites, even after it had ordered operations to stop. The next hearing is set for February 14. Dushyant Mainali welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, saying it was good as the miners were required to respond to the High Court first.
The issue of uncontrolled soapstone mining in Bageshwar has created a major environmental, geological, and cultural concern for the residents of this hilly region
Leave a Reply