The Supreme Court on June 18, 2026 highlighted the need to protect forests across India, singling out Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB) as a state with valuable natural ecosystems.
Key Developments
- The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana, heard a petition challenging the high court’s consent order for stone mining near forest boundaries.
- The Supreme Court observed that some states, like Jharkhand, are “natural paradises” and must be preserved.
- The Jharkhand High Court had earlier directed that no consent for stone mining or crushers be granted within one kilometre of protected forest boundaries, later reducing the buffer to 250 metres in a notification.
- The bench cautioned against “demoralising” high courts and deferred the matter to the high court for a final order.
Important Facts
• In April, the Jharkhand High Court set a forest boundary distance of 500 metres for stone mining and 400 metres for stone crushers.
• The January notification reduced the minimum distance from the earlier 400‑500 metres to 250 metres, prompting the petition.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that the high court’s order should stand unless legally challenged, reinforcing the principle of judicial hierarchy.
Exam Relevance
The case illustrates the interplay between environmental law, federal structure, and judicial review. Aspirants should note:
- Role of the Supreme Court in safeguarding constitutional values like the right to a clean environment (Article 21).
- Importance of state agencies such as JSPCB in implementing environmental policies.
- Legal concepts of forest boundary distance and their relevance to sustainable development goals.
Way Forward
• The high court is expected to issue a final order clarifying the permissible distance for stone mining near forests.
• States should align their notifications with judicial pronouncements to avoid legal challenges.
• Continuous monitoring by bodies like JSPCB will be crucial to balance development and conservation.