In a landmark move, the Supreme Court of India has issued crucial directions to conduct an in-depth study on the potential impact of blasting activities, specifically related to limestone extraction, on the historic Chittorgarh Fort. The bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti, has recognized the urgent need to address environmental concerns and safeguard the structural integrity of this iconic monument.

The case stems from a longstanding Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated in 1999, which gained momentum in 2011 when respondents filed against the Union of India and others. The primary objective of the PIL was to protect Chittorgarh Fort by imposing restrictions on blasting within a ten-kilometer radius, restraining the Mining Department from granting leases within this zone, and prohibiting open blasting practices.

The Court framed the pivotal issue at hand: whether blasting operations for limestone extraction, particularly in proximity to Chittorgarh Fort, pose a threat to its structural integrity and the preservation of historic monuments. Recognizing the fort's significance as a notified monument under the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Acts, the State Government had already regulated limestone mining in the vicinity.

Chittorgarh Fort, standing as a testament to nationalism, courage, and medieval chivalry, has weathered centuries of battles and witnessed the power and pride of its rulers. Despite contemporary challenges such as urbanization, the High Court of Rajasthan addressed a distinct and significant problem related to the geological composition of the area, including Vindhyan age limestone formations with reserves located in Nimbahera city.

To address the multifaceted concerns, the Supreme Court has mandated a comprehensive study by a team of multidisciplinary experts from the Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, Jharkhand. This team, comprised of experts in civil engineering, earthquake engineering, structural geology, and mining engineering, is tasked with assessing the environmental pollution and impact on all structures within a five-kilometer radius of the Chittorgarh Fort resulting from blasting operations.

The Court acknowledged the historical importance of Chittorgarh Fort and its role as a witness to the valor displayed by rulers and occupants between the seventh and sixteenth centuries. Despite the fort's resilient history, concerns arose regarding its deterioration due to negligence, as recorded in a report dated 30.09.2014.

In response to these concerns, the Court implemented a three-pronged study and action plan. This included enforcing Solid Waste Management Rules, controlling monkey menace, and unauthorized littering in Chittorgarh Fort and its vicinity. Additionally, the use of an electronic blasting system, limiting explosive quantities based on recommendations from the Ministry of Coal and Mines, was permitted in the study.

Furthermore, the State was directed to ensure that only notified lessees undertake mining blasting operations, and comprehensive mining operation data had to be provided by other lessees planning blasting. The Court explicitly prohibited blasting operations within a five-kilometer radius of Chittorgarh Fort and constituted a team of experts to assess environmental pollution and its impact on the fort's structures.

The study, scheduled to span four months, aimed to consider technological innovations and advanced techniques. Respondents were required to prepare a list of leaseholders, and the petitioner's use of an electronic blasting system was allowed within specified limits. In the event of unexpected damage during the study, Respondents were authorized to halt blasting operations, with the petitioner covering all associated expenses.

Emphasizing the importance of proper maintenance of Chittorgarh Fort, the Court addressed issues such as tourist footfall, monkey menace, and waste management. The committee was given until July 5th, 2024, to submit its comprehensive report, and the matter is slated for further consideration on July 9, 2024.

Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Madhavi Divan, and Jitendra Mohan Sharma represented the petitioner, Birla Corporation, while Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi appeared for the State. Senior Advocates Jayant Kumar Mehta and Adn Rao represented the respondents (Respondents no 1 to 6 in the original PIL). The legal appearances were as follows:

For the Petitioner:

Sarad Kumar Singhania, H.D. Thanvi, Nikhil Kumar Singh, Liz Mathew, Giriraj Subramanium, Akhilesh Talluri, Praveen Kumar, Sunaina Kumar, Kunal Vajani, Kartikey Bhatt, Kunal Mimani, Shubhang Tandon, Akshay Luthra, Tejasvi Kumar, Akshat Sharma, Syed Sarfaraz Karim, Ekansh Bansal, Renu Bhandari, Ambar Qamaruddin, Gagan Gupta, Aditya Samaddar, Mohit Gupta, Vinay Kumar Jain, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S.K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, Komal, Diya Jain, Madhu Goyal, Nikhil Jain, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Chitra Agarwal, Vidisha Sawrup, Manavi Agarwal, Divya Singh, and E.C. Agrawala Advocates.

For the State:

Shubhangi Agarwal, Apurv Singhvi, Rohan Darade, and Milind Kumar Advocates.

For the Respondents:

Farrukh Rasheed, Reshma Bai Bhukya, Ashish Sharma, Pragati Neekhra, Annam Venkatesh, Rahul Mishra, Dhuli Shiva Shankar, Agrimaa Singh, Ritumbhara Garg, Shaswat Parihar, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Ritam Bara, Ajay Kumar Singh, Niharika Dubey, Shashwat, S.K. Verma, Irshad Ahmad, and Sarad Kumar Singhania, Advocates.

Case: BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs BHANWAR SINGH AND OTHERS

S.L.P.(C) No. 21211 of 2012.

Click to read/download judgment.