The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the 1 km ban on mining around wildlife sanctuaries, strengthening a protective boundary that tigers rely on in landscapes increasingly dominated by extractive pressure. For Jharkhand’s Saranda forest, the 1 km ban forces decisions that have been delayed for years, compelling the state to finally declare large sections of the region as a wildlife sanctuary. This ruling reshapes a forest long destabilised by mining and gives endangered wildlife a chance at recovery.
Court Orders Sanctuary Notification And Enforces The 1 Km Ban
The court directed the Jharkhand government to notify 126 compartments of the Saranda forest as a wildlife sanctuary within three months, ending years of hesitation, as reported by Tribune India. Despite scientific recommendations, the state repeatedly avoided completing the notification process by citing habitation concerns, shifting calculations of forest area and administrative constraints. The court rejected these arguments, emphasising the urgency of protecting the region’s ecological integrity.
In addition to this directive, the court reaffirmed that the nationwide 1 km ban on mining near national parks and wildlife sanctuaries must be treated as non-negotiable. It clarified that mining within this distance is hazardous to wildlife because of blasting, roadbuilding, dust and constant industrial noise that displace animals from their natural routes. The judgment aligns with long-standing evidence that extractive disturbance inflicts severe damage on tiger habitats and reflects the broader pattern linking mining and tigers, where industrial activity frequently outruns ecological safeguards.
Mining Influence Still Shapes What Gets Protected
Even while enforcing the 1 km ban, the court excluded six compartments designated for mining from sanctuary notification. This exclusion demonstrates how deeply mining interests continue to influence the boundaries of protected areas. Each compartment carved out for mining becomes an opening for disturbance to enter the forest and weaken ecological stability.
Saranda was once a continuous landscape of rich canopy, healthy prey populations and movement corridors supporting multiple species. Over time, mining fractured the forest, introduced heavy-vehicle routes and pushed wildlife into shrinking pockets of safety. Tigers cannot adapt to constant disruption; they are forced to move away from industrial zones, eventually abandoning areas critical to their survival.
The state’s earlier claim that more than 57,000 hectares could not be protected due to habitation concerns reveals how ecological boundaries can shift under political pressure. Only under scrutiny did the state revise the figure to 31,468 hectares. Such inconsistencies highlight why firm legal direction is essential when mining interests are involved.
Court Rejects Claims That Sanctuary Protection Threatens Tribal Rights
The court dismissed the argument that declaring the region a wildlife sanctuary would undermine the rights of Adivasi communities. It noted that the legal protections under the Forest Rights Act and the Wildlife Protection Act ensure that traditional rights, habitations and community structures remain protected within sanctuary areas. The court criticised the state for failing to inform residents about these protections and instead using them as justification to delay the notification.
For decades, tribal communities across Saranda have been harmed not by wildlife protection but by mining. Pollution, forest loss and reduced access to natural resources have disrupted livelihoods and traditions. Properly implemented sanctuary status, supported by the 1 km ban, can limit industrial encroachment and secure both community rights and ecological health.
Enforcement Will Determine Whether The 1 Km Ban Has Real Impact
The 1 km ban provides a strong legal baseline, but its effectiveness depends on enforcement. Across India, mining continues in many areas through temporary permissions, outdated leases or administrative loopholes. Without monitoring, boundary markings and rapid intervention against violations, even a firm ruling can lose its strength on the ground.
To make the 1 km ban meaningful, the state must deploy rangers, establish clear sanctuary demarcation, regulate access roads and restore degraded habitat where possible. Tigers experience habitat through sound, cover and continuity—not through legal language. Immediate enforcement is essential so wildlife can benefit from the protections announced in court.
A Turning Point Only If Implemented With Conviction
The Supreme Court ruling marks a critical moment for Saranda and for tiger conservation across India. If Jharkhand meets the notification deadline, enforces the 1 km ban consistently and blocks mining that threatens core habitat, the forest can begin recovering. If enforcement weakens or exceptions expand, the ruling risks becoming another unfulfilled promise.
Tigers depend on landscapes where disturbance stops at the boundary, not where it reaches the heart of the forest. The 1 km ban is a protective line that can safeguard the species—if the state treats it as a commitment rather than a condition.
Source: Tribune India, India.
Photo: Tribune India, India.
