In a landmark move on November 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India directed a nationwide prohibition on mining within one kilometre of the boundaries of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, calling such activities “hazardous to wildlife and ecological balance.” The bench, led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, coupled the direction with an instruction to the Jharkhand government to notify the Saranda and Sasangdaburu tracts as a wildlife sanctuary and conservation reserve.
The order reiterates and extends earlier rulings that drew a bright line around protected areas: mining—including fresh leases, expansions or resumptions of operations—cannot take place within one kilometre of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. The court framed the ban as preventive and remedial: it aims to stop fragmentation of core habitat, pollution of water and soil, noise and dust disturbance, and the creation of access routes that bring poaching and invasive pressures. The bench also underscored that statutory steps must be taken to secure adjacent forests, asking Jharkhand to formally notify Saranda’s 120 forest compartments as a sanctuary while ensuring tribal and forest-dwellers’ rights are protected.
The order builds on the long-running Godavarman litigation that has, over decades, given the apex court sweeping supervisory powers on forest protection and has previously held that mining within one kilometre of protected areas is impermissible. The court’s latest pronouncement closes gaps where mining had continued under differing state rules or ambiguous eco-sensitive-zone (ESZ) boundaries.
Mining’s footprint on biodiversity is well documented. Global assessments identify mineral extraction as a direct threat to thousands of vertebrate species; one synthesis found mineral extraction threatened roughly 4,600 species worldwide, with mining and quarrying implicated in the majority of those cases. In India, field studies and environmental reviews have linked iron-ore and other extractive operations to altered movement patterns of elephants and ungulates, declines in local prey populations, water pollution, and increased human-wildlife conflict where habitats become fragmented.
The Supreme Court’s present ban recalls several earlier interventions. The court has previously ordered stoppages in high-profile cases—Kudremukh iron-ore operations were shuttered because mining fell inside the sanctuary, Bellary leases were curtailed, and in 2012–2014 the court imposed strong curbs on mining in the Western Ghats pending clearances. Those precedents show the judiciary has repeatedly stepped in where mining jeopardised legally protected or ecologically sensitive lands.
Practically, the judgment will require states to redraw or re-assert exclusion zones around parks and sanctuaries, to audit existing leases that fall within the 1 km buffer, and to decide on compensation or rehabilitation where operations must close. It also raises implementation questions: how to reconcile legitimate community forest rights, how quickly state forest departments can notify sanctuaries like Saranda without disenfranchising forest dwellers, and how enforcement will be monitored across hundreds of protected-area borders. The court’s direction to respect local rights while creating statutory protection is meant to strike that balance, but success will depend on transparent, rapid state action and robust monitoring.
Conservation scientists argue the ruling is timely: mining and other forms of resource extraction are a leading driver of habitat loss and species declines globally and in India. The ban establishes a clearer legal buffer to protect core habitats and wildlife corridors, essential for wide-ranging species such as elephants and tigers, and may set a policy benchmark for other extractive activities like large-scale quarrying and hill-cutting. But legal clarity must be matched by on-ground enforcement, scientific demarcation of critical corridors, and policies that offer alternative livelihoods for affected communities.
1. What has the Supreme Court ordered regarding mining near national parks?
The Supreme Court has mandated a nationwide ban on all mining activities within one kilometre of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries to prevent ecological damage.
2. Why was mining banned within 1 km of protected areas?
The Court cited irreversible harm to wildlife, habitat fragmentation, pollution, and increased human–wildlife conflict as key reasons for the ban.
3. How will this ruling affect ongoing mining operations?
States must review all existing mining leases within the restricted zone and may need to halt operations, revise boundaries, or initiate rehabilitation processes.
4. What did the Court say about the Saranda forest?
The Court directed the Jharkhand government to notify Saranda and Sasangdaburu as a wildlife sanctuary and conservation reserve, while safeguarding forest-dweller rights.
5. Has the Supreme Court issued similar mining restrictions before?
Yes. Past rulings restricted mining in Kudremukh, Bellary, and parts of the Western Ghats, underscoring the Court’s long-standing role in environmental protection.