LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

In Re: Illegal Sand Mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary and Threat to Endangered Aquatic Wildlife v. State of Rajasthan

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 549Decided 26 May 2026
SMW(C) No.-000002-000002 - 2026
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

The Supreme Court took up this matter on its own motion (suo motu) over illegal, large-scale sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary, which threatens endangered aquatic wildlife (including gharials) and has caused illegal excavation dangerously close to the pillars of a bridge on National Highway-44 near the Morena-Dholpur border. Over a series of prior orders (2nd April, 17th April, and 14th May 2026), the Court had directed the States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh to strengthen surveillance and enforcement (including CCTV systems, vehicle identification, and inter-state coordination) but found compliance, particularly by Rajasthan, to be "abysmal" and marked by "administrative apathy." This order records the Court's review of fresh compliance affidavits and issues further directions.

Decision Breakdown

The Court reviewed detailed compliance affidavits: Rajasthan reported financial sanctions of roughly Rs. 65.47 crores for surveillance systems, installation of over 100 CCTV cameras, deployment of armed constabulary at vulnerable points, and enforcement statistics (hundreds of FIRs, arrests, and vehicle seizures across affected districts), while Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh reported steps on unregistered/unidentified vehicles used in illegal mining. The Court impleaded the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) as a party and directed it to report on securing the NH-44 bridge near Morena-Dholpur. It ordered several senior state officials (Additional Chief Secretary, Home; Principal Secretaries of Mining, Finance, Forest, and Transport, State of Rajasthan) to personally appear with individual compliance affidavits, and disposed of an intervention application by an NGO (Conservation Action Trust) while allowing it to share information with the court-appointed Amicus Curiae. It also admitted a fresh application by the Madhya Pradesh Forest Employees Association, directing all three states to respond on the absence of a uniform welfare/compensation policy for forest guards killed or injured while combating illegal mining, and listed the matter for further hearing on 22 July 2026.

Lesson Learnt

In ongoing environmental suo motu proceedings, the Supreme Court can compel senior government officials to personally appear and account for non-compliance with its earlier orders, and can expand the scope of a case (here, to include forest personnel welfare) when related issues have a direct bearing on effective enforcement, illustrating that environmental protection orders are enforced through continuing judicial supervision, not a single one-time ruling.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case