Case Studies – Eia Failures In Indian Mining Projects

4th July, 2025 - 7:16 am Categories: Legal Case 0 Comments

To comprehend the intrinsic vulnerabilities of India’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system in mining, it is imperative to study actual cases where the system failed to protect against major environmental and social harms. The case studies not only depict the abuse of loopholes in the EIA system but also determine the consequences of weak governance, weak enforcement mechanisms, and deprivation of local people’s participation. The following examples describe long-standing flaws in the system that continue to exist despite recurrent legal reforms and continued protests from local communities. Perhaps one of the best-known is the planned POSCO steel complex and captive iron ore mine in Odisha, a project that had drawn international criticism for its environmental and human rights implications.[i]

CASE OF POSCO

South Korean steel behemoth POSCO had planned to establish a giant steel complex with an integrated port and specialist mining facilities in Jagatsinghpur district. In spite of the size of the project and the nature of the place – dense forest, agricultural fields, and fishing hamlets – the EIA process was in a hurry and grossly defective. Public hearings were plagued by poor accessibility and non-publication of project details in the local language. The EIA report did not examine the cumulative environmental effect of the plant, the mine, and the port as an integrated complex, but dealt with them in isolation. On top of that, villagers’ concerns about displacement, forest rights, and loss of livelihood were given short shrift in the final appraisal. Years of agitations, court cases, and adverse reports by a number of expert committees finally resulted in the project being put on the backburner in 2017, which goes to indicate how people’s opposition and judicial recourse had to bridge the gap left by institutional lapse.

VEDANTA MINING ISSUES

A similar neglect of indigenous and environmental rights happened in the Vedanta bauxite mining venture in the Niyamgiri Hills of Odisha.[ii] This is not just an ecologically sensitive zone but also sacred land to the Dongria Kondh, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG). The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report authored by Vedanta grossly downplayed the socio-cultural effects of the venture and did not consult the affected populace sufficiently in a meaningful manner. The public hearings held were viewed as superficial, and the report contained a perfunctory consideration of the religious and cultural significance of the wooded hills. In a breakthrough ruling, the Supreme Court of India vested decision-making powers with the gram sabhas (village councils) to decide upon the viability of the mining ventures in the zone.[iii] In 2013, a joint decision of twelve gram sabhas led to the project’s rejection, which was eventually canceled. This was a landmark decision in India’s environmental jurisprudence, and it reflects the capability of local communities, assisted by the law, in playing effective custodians of their environment – even against a faulty EIA process.

INSTANCES IN GOA

Another example of learning is the Goa iron ore mining case, where unregulated mining resulted in extensive environmental degradation and regulatory failure. Mining in Goa went unchecked with impunity for years with firms exploiting weak enforcement, flawed EIA reports, and inter-agency coordination lapse. EIA studies in the state could not register the cumulative effect of more than 100 iron ore mines in a relatively small geography.[iv] Large-scale deforestation, river siltation, and over-extraction of groundwater were the rule. Renewal of mining leases without environmental appraisal and illegal mining were the norm. In 2012, the Justice Shah Commission came out with a damning report outlining the extent of illegal mining and environmental safeguards failure.[v] This led to the Supreme Court ordering closure of all mining activity in the state. While mining resumed later under stricter regulation, the Goa case exemplifies how a failed EIA system can result in extensive ecological and institutional failure.

INSTANCES IN CHHATTISGARH

In Chhattisgarh, another mining hub, the social and ecological costs of substandard EIAs are no less apparent. In the Hasdeo Arand forest block, one of India’s last remaining remnants of unbroken dense forest, several coal blocks have been legally opened up to mining in the face of clear negative ecological consequence.[vi] The area is also home to several tribal communities whose culture and livelihood are inextricably linked with the forest ecosystem. Yet EIAs prepared for mining here were often incomplete or misleading. They underestimated forest cover density, ignored wildlife corridors, and provided generic mitigation measures. Public hearings were a formality and failed to capture the voice of local tribal communities. The cumulative effect of several coal blocks was never assessed as a totality, resulting in piecemeal clearances and irreversible environmental damage. Civil society organizations, environmental researchers, and certain state agencies have sounded repeated alarms, but the EIA system continues to facilitate piecemeal approvals that increasingly ravage one of India’s most ecologically valuable areas.[vii]

All of these case studies are pointing to the same direction: poor baseline studies, shallow impact assessments, shallow public hearings, and poor accountability. They are also pointing to the key role of civil society groups, local communities, and the courts in opposing bad projects and holding the system accountable. But depending on activism and litigation alone to address structural issues in the EIA process is not an option, nor is it desirable. What these cases are suggesting is the necessity for serious, systemic reform that goes beyond cosmetic compliance and ensures EIAs are actually utilized as tools of environmental conservation and informed decision-making.

By and large, such failures are not mere procedural mistakes but symptoms of an underlying institutional malaise. They show how the EIA process is often reduced to a checkbox exercise – coaxed, hurried, or diluted under coercion by powerful corporate and political interests. As long as the underlying system issues enabling such failures remain unresolved, environmental degradation, social tensions, and legal consequences will remain unavoidable fallouts of mining operations in India.

Author: Kaustubh Kumar, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

REFERENCES

[i] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 277 (India).

[ii] Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, (2013) 6 SCC 476 (India).

[iii] Id. at 483-485.

[iv] Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 590 (India).

[v] Justice M.B. Shah Commission of Inquiry, Report on Illegal Mining of Iron Ore and Manganese in the State of Goa (2012).

[vi] Alok Shukla v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 15985 of 2017, Chhattisgarh High Court (India).

[vii] Greenpeace India, How Coal Mining is Trashing Tigerland: Destroying Forests, Threatening Tigers and Displacing Communities in Central India 22-25 (2021).