Jojari-Luni Pollution: SC Warns Rajasthan Officers Of Investigation Over False Reference To Its Order And Regularisation Of Illegal Mining

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took exception to a communication issued by a State officer which, relying on an order of the Supreme Court, fixed the boundaries of the rivers by reference to their dry-season flow.

The Bench observed that the officer had made a false reference to its order. It also questioned the State on illegal mining in the riverbeds, noting that leases had been regularised in areas where illegal mining had been reported.

The State, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, was directed to come back on the next date with a concrete and workable proposal to restore the rivers and their flow corridors. The matter will next be heard on November 27.

Justice Mehta then turned to the communication by which the State's officer had measured the width of the rivers on the basis of their dry-season flow, purportedly in terms of the Supreme Court's directions. "Which order of this Court says so? Tell us. And who is this officer who has brought this order, please?" he asked.

Counsel for the State began, "The moment we came to know from the committee that…", but the Bench remarked that the committee ought to have flagged the issue, and pressed the State to point to the order that permitted such an interpretation.

The Court observed that the officer had made a false reference to its order while issuing the communication. Justice Mehta remarked that the officer responsible should be suspended. ASG Raju responded, "Whether it is deliberate or not, I must find out".

To illustrate the point, Justice Mehta referred to the measurements recorded for the Luni. The bridge across the river, he noted, is about 1,782 metres wide, whereas the State's officer had recorded the river's flow width as only about 8 metres. "Measurements which have been mentioned are really absolutely absurd, height of absurdity," Justice Mehta said. "Your officer says the flow is only 8 metres, referring to the dry flow." The judge underlined that the boundaries of a river cannot be determined by looking at it in the dry season. "Reference has to be to flood, when the water is full in the river, it flows," he said, noting that these rivers flood every two to three years.

The Bench also questioned the State's position that the Luni is a seasonal river which carries only 15.3 MLD of sewage effluent during the dry season. Justice Mehta pointed out that the committee's own report recorded that the figures defining the flow paths and edges of the rivers did not accord with the Supreme Court's directions.

The Court asked why the State was narrowing the river corridors to 8, 10 or 18 metres when the boundaries actually recorded were much wider. "Why do you pass such orders? The committee's orders, why do you need to pass? Confining the river to 18 metres, 8 metres, 10 metres? That's obviously wrong assessment," Justice Mehta said.

The Bench agreed with the committee's recommendation that the entire recorded river corridors be preserved for the Luni, the Jojari and the other rivers concerned, on the basis of the records of the Revenue Department or the Water Resources Department, whichever is larger.

On illegal mining in the riverbeds, Justice Mehta asked, "What have you done about providing the statistics of the illegal mining in the rivers? What have you done?" The Bench noted that once illegal mining had been flagged, the authorities had proceeded to regularise the leases instead of taking action against it. "You have regularized," Justice Mehta said.

He also questioned the decision to allot mining leases in areas where illegal mining had been reported. "What kind of action is that? You say that you have not registered FIRs… You are allowing it now," he said. The Court questioned whether the State had, through subsequent orders, effectively regularised illegal mining.

The Bench then issued a warning to the State. "We think that if you don't pull up your socks and don't mend your ways, we will be compelled to direct proceedings and investigation," the Court said. Justice Mehta cautioned that such action could leave several officers "in hot waters".

Holding the State accountable for years of inaction, Justice Mehta said that Rajasthan could not shift the entire burden of restoring its rivers onto industries and municipalities. "Ultimately, the polluter pays principle will apply equally to the State as well as to the industries," he said.

As the State and its officials had apparently failed to discharge their obligations, Justice Mehta said the Court would place the initial burden on the State. The Court noted that the matter was no longer confined to municipal bodies. "The entire rivers have been destroyed in the full view of the State authorities," Justice Mehta observed.

The judge reminded the State that orders imposing penalties on municipalities had already been passed, and that earlier directions, including those of the National Green Tribunal, had not resolved the crisis. He referred to earlier orders of the Supreme Court and the NGT, including directions dating back to 2004 and a 2015 direction requiring the State to furnish a ₹40-crore bank guarantee.

"Are you able to understand the gravity of this situation? That you have been sleeping over this issue for how many years?" Justice Mehta asked.

The State told the Court that it had furnished a report of about 2,000 pages to the committee and assured the Bench that it would implement the committee's recommendations. It also referred to a phased programme for reviving industries while ensuring full compliance. The Bench, for its part, discussed involving additional assistance to examine the extensive material placed on record.

The Court rejected the suggestion that the economic viability of industries could justify continuing damage to the environment. "Please go and once see the condition of the rivers, and then you advance that argument," Justice Mehta told ASG Raju. "Making 20 lakh people's lives hell cannot be compared with your economic viability and economic sustenance of a few thousand people," he added.

While acknowledging the importance of industry, employment and the families dependent on it, the Bench held that it was the State's responsibility to ensure that industrial operations complied with environmental requirements and that the rivers were restored. Industrial activity, the Court stressed, cannot be sustained at the cost of the health and livelihoods of lakhs of people.

Among the measures discussed before the Court were the setting up of Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) using Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) technology, and the redistribution of pipelines so that treated water could be returned to industries for reuse.

The Court noted that reuse of treated water could reduce the pressure on groundwater. Flagging the gravity of the groundwater crisis, it referred to the fact that a substantial proportion of wells had already been declared affected. Restoring the water system, the Bench said, would benefit both the State and the industries by reducing their dependence on groundwater.

The Court also heard submissions on the distinct groundwater situation in Balotra. Counsel argued that under the guidelines of the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA), groundwater extraction cannot be permitted in the area, where groundwater is stated to be the only available source of water.

Referring to scientific findings placed before the NGT in 2015, counsel questioned how industrial activity could be permitted in such circumstances. He also flagged the proposed development of another industrial area in Balotra, arguing that the groundwater restrictions went to the root of the issue.

Justice Mehta told ASG Raju that the State must come back with a concrete and workable proposal to restore the river system and its flow corridors. "Next date, come back prepared with an offer which is acceptable and which will work positively in the direction to restore everything," he said.

The matter will now be taken up on November 27.