Supreme Court Orders SIT Into Illegal Bajri Mining In Jojari-Luni Rivers

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the directions on October 26.

The Bench further ordered that a 100-metre protective zone be maintained on either side of the recorded outer boundaries of the rivers and that no Red Category industry be set up within 500 metres of those boundaries. It directed the Registry to implead the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA), appointed Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, assisted by Advocate-on-Record Namit Saxena, as amici curiae, and listed the matters as part-heard on November 27, 2026.

Background

By its order dated September 29, 2026, the Court had taken note of the reports of the High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee and the State's status reports, and found that "notwithstanding the directions issued from time to time, several concerns remained unaddressed and that a proactive and preventive mechanism was necessary to secure the effective restoration of the river ecosystem." It had then issued directions on the removal of unauthorised discharge points, enforcement against illegal industries and mining, augmentation of effluent treatment infrastructure and protection of the natural flow of the rivers. The State was asked to finalise, in coordination with the Committee, a Comprehensive Resolution Plan "with specific timelines and measurable milestones", and to assess the feasibility of relocating polluting industrial areas located close to the rivers.

Pursuant to that order, the Committee forwarded a Note with its observations and recommendations, and the State filed a compliance affidavit. The present order deals with both.

The Committee's most serious objection concerned a proposal by the State's Water Resources Department to redetermine the edges and widths of the Jojari, Bandi and Luni rivers on the basis of the estimated flow of sewage and treated wastewater. In a communication dated October 7, 2026, the Department had sought to justify the exercise by relying upon the proceedings before the Supreme Court on September 22, 2026.

The Committee, having examined that order, observed that the Court had issued no direction "to treat sewage or treated wastewater as the basis for determining the geographical boundaries or widths of the rivers." It cautioned that the Department had misconstrued the Court's directions, "thereby risking the attribution to this Court of a position that it has neither directed nor endorsed." The recorded river corridors, it noted, were already reflected in the records of the Revenue Department and the Water Resources Department, and there was "no demonstrated necessity" for an exercise that could displace them "by reference to the volume of sewage flowing through particular stretches."

To illustrate the consequence, the Committee referred to two locations on the Luni in District Balotra. At Bhituja, the recorded width of the river is about 1,172 metres, and at Ajit, about 794 metres. Reducing these widths to about eight metres "on the basis of a totally flawed engineering assessment of sewage or treated wastewater flow", the Committee warned, "would effectively reduce the river to a narrow channel carrying sewage and effluent, disregarding its recorded geographical extent and natural characteristics."

At the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for Rajasthan, "fairly submitted" that the exercise "was misconceived and could not be sustained." He further submitted that the State was willing to refrain from permitting new industries until the High Flood Line and buffer zones were lawfully determined with reference to the records of the two departments.

Acting on that submission, the Court restrained the State from granting any further permission for new industrial units "along or in the vicinity of the riverine ecosystem until the High Flood Line and the buffer zones are scientifically determined, having due regard to the records maintained by the Revenue Department and the Water Resources Department." Adopting the Committee's recommendation, it directed that "an additional protective zone of 100 metres shall be maintained on either side of the respective recorded outer boundaries of the rivers" and that "No Red Category industry shall be permitted to be established within a distance of 500 metres from the said recorded outer boundaries."

The Court found the State's response on illegal gravel mining to be "One particularly concerning aspect" of the compliance affidavit. The Department of Mines and Geology had reported that, in several areas where illegal mining had earlier been detected, mining leases had subsequently been granted "in accordance with the prescribed procedure", and that mining was now being carried out "in a regulated and sustainable manner", with illegal mining being detected only in isolated areas.

The Bench held that this did not meet the concern. "The fact that mining leases may have subsequently been granted in accordance with the prescribed procedure does not, by itself, answer the question whether the grant of such leases is environmentally sustainable or consistent with the need to preserve and restore the natural course, riverbed and ecological integrity of the river systems," it said. Where illegal mining had been detected, the later grant of a lease over the same area "cannot be treated as sufficient to dispel the concerns arising from the earlier activity, without an independent and scientifically informed assessment of the cumulative environmental impact."

Drawing a line between procedural and environmental compliance, the Court observed that the State's explanation, "if accepted without further scrutiny, would risk reducing the problem of illegal mining to one of post facto regularisation and sanctioning of activities that were otherwise illegal, thereby lending legitimacy to such mining operations." It added, "Compliance with the prescribed procedure for grant of a mining lease and compliance with the environmental safeguards governing the actual conduct of mining are distinct requirements. The former cannot be a substitute for the latter."

The Court accordingly said it was necessary to ascertain whether the areas later brought under lease had been assessed with regard to the natural flow of the rivers, the integrity of their beds and banks, replenishment capacity, groundwater recharge and "the cumulative impact of mining across contiguous stretches."

The Committee's Note had flagged "indiscriminate and unscientific bajri mining" across the river system, in some places across "practically their entire width". It referred in particular to five contiguous mining plots at Village Kanana, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Balotra, covering 458.6 hectares and about 8.1 kilometres of riverbed. Mining had begun on Plots 201, 203 and 204, while Letters of Intent for Plots 202 and 205 had been accepted with environmental clearance still pending. The Committee recommended that existing leases be reconsidered where necessary and that environmental clearance for the two pending plots be withheld.

Although the compliance affidavit recorded certain steps, including the constitution of district-level vigilance teams, enforcement action against illegal units and the assessment and recovery of environmental compensation, the Court noted that "a substantial number of the initiatives contemplated under the directions of this Court are still stated to be under consideration at the level of the State Government or the concerned departments."

"The initiation of administrative processes, by itself, cannot be treated as fulfilment of the directions issued by this Court," the Bench said. "What is required is their effective implementation on the ground, within definite timelines and under clearly identified institutional responsibility." Given the gravity of the concerns, it held, "the State cannot be permitted to allow bureaucratic delays to impede or frustrate the implementation of the directions issued by this Court."

The Court went on to observe that the State "cannot discharge its obligation to protect the river systems merely by reporting the number of cases detected, FIRs registered, penalties recovered or leases granted. The relevant consideration is whether the measures adopted are capable of preventing further degradation and securing the restoration of the affected areas."

Taking forward the Committee's recommendation for an independent investigation, the Court directed Rajasthan to constitute the SIT within three days of receiving the order. The team is to be headed by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police and is to include, among others, the Superintendents of Police of Jodhpur, Balotra and Pali.

The SIT is to carry out a comprehensive investigation into organised illegal bajri mining affecting the Luni, Jojari and Bandi rivers and their tributaries, and to identify "the persons and entities involved in such activities, the networks through which the illegal extraction, transportation and sale of bajri are organised, and the beneficiaries of such operations." It is also to examine "the role, if any, of public officials in facilitating or enabling such activities, including instances of collusion, dereliction of duty or failure to take action despite knowledge of the violations." Action is to follow against all persons found responsible, in accordance with law, and the SIT must file a status report on or before the next date of hearing.

The Court further directed that the Integrated Public Reporting and Environmental Grievance Redressal Mechanism, which it had ordered to be set up on August 7, 2026, shall include a facility for anonymised complaints about illegal bajri mining and other unlawful activities affecting the rivers, with provision for recording, examining and referring such complaints to the competent authorities.

Digvijay Singh Jasol, appearing in person, told the Court that the Balotra block, comprising Balotra, Bithuja and Jasol, has been classified as a Dark Zone or Over-Exploited Area since the 1990s under CGWA standards. Relying on the NGT's order of July 9, 2015, he submitted that groundwater extraction for commercial and industrial purposes is prohibited in such areas. He told the Court that, at a meeting with the ASG and State officials, it had been indicated that some extraction was being permitted for small industries, which, according to him, would further deplete groundwater in the district.

Jasol also relied on a National Productivity Council report on groundwater contamination in Balotra and Pali, questioned the revocation in 2011 of the moratorium on polluting textile industries, and raised concerns over a proposed textile park at Newai, about 30 kilometres from Balotra. He submitted that only a handful of the roughly 135 Effluent Treatment Plant units in the Balotra block were operating in accordance with ZLD norms, and that their scattered location allowed untreated effluent to be discharged into drains or carried away in tankers. He sought a moratorium on new textile industries in the block and pointed out that the State had filed no response to his Note.

The Court said that these concerns "underscore the need for a coordinated assessment of the relationship between mining, industrial pollution and the ecological condition of the river systems." It directed the State to file a separate affidavit responding specifically to the issues raised in Jasol's Note and setting out the action taken or proposed. It also directed the Registry to implead the CGWA within a week, and the CGWA, once impleaded, to file an affidavit on the status of groundwater availability, extraction and depletion in Jodhpur, Balotra and Pali.

The Committee had observed that "administrative assurances and projected completion dates cannot be a substitute for treatment capacity commensurate with the volume of industrial effluent generated." While it acknowledged the proposed 4 MLD ZLD facility at Jodhpur as an immediate remedial measure, it stressed that the facility could not, by itself, achieve complete ZLD, and called for time-bound 100% ZLD compliance at CETP, Sangaria, Jodhpur.

Rishabh Sancheti, appearing for the Jodhpur Pollution Control and Research Foundation, told the Court that the Committee had recommended that the 4 MLD ZLD project be commissioned strictly within the committed timelines, and that the proposal now required the State Government's approval. He sought a direction to the State to consider it, including a request for financial assistance for ZLD plants and redistribution pipelines to convey RO permeate to designated points of reuse.

The Court directed Rajasthan to formulate a comprehensive policy for extending financial assistance to industrial units wishing to set up ZLD plants. Until the policy is framed, the State is to consider applications for such assistance, including for the associated pipeline network, case by case after technical appraisal and verification, and decide them expeditiously. The State was also directed to take steps to establish a redistribution pipeline network for the conveyance and reuse of treated wastewater and RO permeate, "so as to facilitate its optimum utilisation by industrial units and minimise the discharge of effluents into the river systems", and to prepare a time-bound plan for its implementation.

In a separate set of interlocutory applications, Bherawa Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. sought clarification of the Court's orders of March 18, 2026 and May 29, 2026. The company's Consent to Operate, valid until January 31, 2030, had been revoked by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) on August 18, 2026, and its unit directed to be closed. Its appeal before the NGT under Section 16(c) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 was not decided on merits after the Tribunal, on the RSPCB's reliance on the Supreme Court's orders, held on September 28, 2026 that the proceedings would be governed by those orders. The company withdrew the appeal on October 5, 2026.

The Bench explained that its earlier orders obliged the State and the RSPCB to act against units operating in breach of statutory requirements, consent conditions or environmental standards, and barred closed units from resuming operations "except with the prior leave and express permission of this Court." Those directions, it said, "must, however, be understood in the context of their object and scope, namely, the enforcement of environmental safeguards and the regulation of the resumption of operations by industrial units."

The Court held that the directions "cannot be construed as excluding or extinguishing the statutory appellate jurisdiction vested in the NGT under the NGT Act, 2010 to examine the legality and sustainability of an independent regulatory order passed by the RSPCB." It reasoned that adjudicating a challenge to the legality of such an order "is distinct from the grant of permission to resume operations", and that the NGT's exercise of appellate jurisdiction "would not, by itself, dilute or circumvent the binding directions issued by this Court, nor would it entitle an industrial unit to resume operations contrary to those directions."

The applications were disposed of with liberty to the company to seek restoration of Appeal No. 14 of 2026 (CZ) before the NGT, which is to decide any such application on its own merits and in light of the Court's observations.

Citing "the complex and multifaceted nature of the issues involved", the Court appointed Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, assisted by Advocate-on-Record Namit Saxena, as amici curiae. A copy of the order is to be sent to Justice Sangeet Lodha, former Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, and to counsel for the State.

The matters will be heard next on November 27, 2026 as part-heard.

Case Title: In Re: 2 Million Lives at Risk, Contamination in Jojari River, Rajasthan

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Order Date: October 26, 2026