Senior Attorney Shyam Diwan, Amicus Curiae, in the PIL regarding the iron ore mining in some Karnataka districts, informed the Supreme Court on February 15, that the Amicus was appointed due to the "serious environmental dimensions" of the case, which are no longer involved as such, and that going forward, it is generally agreed that the collection of 10% of the sale value from all mining lessees towards the Special Purpose Vehicle for taking ameliorating and mitigation measures.

The case was being heard by the bench of Justices K. M. Joseph, Sanjiv Khanna, and M. M. Sundresh. 

Prashant Bhushan, an attorney, represents the petitioner. "They (NMDC) may be category A now because now they have complied with all the clearances (The CEC had submitted a report on 03.02.2012 , making several recommendations one of which was to categorise the mines into three categories based on the extent of encroachment in respect of the mining pits and overburden dumps, determined in terms of percentage qua the total lease area. Three categories of the mines were suggested as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’)....Prior to that, because they didn’t have the clearances, in my respectful submission, for the past, they should be treated like the other non-'A' category people, that is 20% should be retained from these people, like category B etc"

The subject was originally brought up, notified, and listed on Monday evening, according to Mr. Diwan, who had earlier informed the court that he had not been able to obtain sufficient inputs for the majority of these items. 
The matter was then postponed until February 22 by the bench. 

The Supreme Court declined to accept the Centrally Empowered Committee's (CEC) suggestion to completely ease the maximum limit placed on production of iron ore in certain regions of the state of Karnataka in August of last year, stating that the situation demands a careful approach. Although broadly agreeing with the CEC's recommendation about ceiling limits, the Apex Court noted that it could not accept the CEC's most recent recommendation in its entirety. 

The limit for the production of iron ore in the Bellary District was increased from 28 MMT to 35 MMT by the bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justices Hima Kohli, and C.T. Ravikumar, and the limit for the combined Chitradurga and Tumkur Districts was increased from 7 MMT to 15 MMT. While raising the ceiling limit, it was noted that environmental concerns and economic development objectives must be balanced in order to ensure sustainable growth.

"The concerns raised by the original petitioner, of possible over excavation and its adverse impact on intergenerational equity, must be balanced against the concerns of the other parties, as the principles of sustainable development also comes into play….Conservation of the ecology and the environment must go hand in hand with the spirit of economic development and the fine balance between the two goals is what is sought to be achieved even now."

In the past, the Apex Court eased restrictions on the selling of iron ore in three Karnataka districts (Bellary, Chitradurga, and Tumkur), and it permitted its export subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Indian government. The Court permitted the mine operators to sell the already mined iron ore through direct contracts rather than through electronic bidding. It did, however, leave open the possibility of raising the cap on iron ore production and asked the Court-appointed Oversight Authority for their thoughts on the matter.

Relevantly, the decision dated 26.08.2022, which refers to the Oversight Authority's report dated 29.07.2022, notes that due to the contradicting reports provided by the CEC and the Monitoring Committee, the Oversight Authority was unable to offer a strong opinion regarding the maximum limit. The Monitoring has taken a different stance, alluding to the infrastructural capacity to transport the iron ore excavated once the ceiling is lifted, whereas the CEC has opined in its report dated 10.04.2022, that orders of fixing direct level caps on production of iron ore by Category A and Category B mines be vacated from the financial year 2022–2023

Case Title: SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA AND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS