Supreme Court gives Rajasthan three days to form SIT on bajri mining, bars new units on rivers
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also deprecated the Mining Department for granting leases over areas where illegal mining was found, and fixed a 100-metre buffer and a 500-metre bar on Red Category industry.
The Supreme Court on 26 October 2026 ordered Rajasthan to set up a Special Investigation Team within three days of receiving its order. The team must investigate organised illegal bajri mining along the Luni, Jojari and Bandi rivers, and an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police must head it.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also barred the State from permitting any new industrial unit along or near the river system. That freeze lasts until the High Flood Line and the buffer zones are scientifically determined.
A protective zone of 100 metres must be kept on either side of the rivers’ recorded outer boundaries, and no Red Category industry may come up within 500 metres of them. The order, reported as 2026 INSC 1203, was passed in the suo motu case on the contamination of the Jojari river, heard with four sets of civil appeals.
A river system already under orders
The proceedings concern what the order calls the continuing degradation of the Jojari-Bandi-Luni river ecosystem. They also concern the need for coordinated, effective and time-bound measures for its restoration and protection (para 1).
On 29 September 2026 the court had reviewed the reports and recommendations of the High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee and the State’s status reports. It took note of continuing sources of pollution, deficiencies in pollution-control infrastructure and gaps in enforcement.
Several concerns remained unaddressed despite earlier directions, the court had observed, and a proactive and preventive mechanism was needed. It then issued directions on removing unauthorised discharge points, enforcement against illegal industrial activity and mining, and review of the guidelines for captive Effluent Treatment Plants (para 2).
The State was also told to coordinate with the Committee and finalise a Comprehensive Resolution Plan with specific timelines and measurable milestones. It was to assess whether polluting industrial areas near the rivers could be relocated, and the matter was listed for 26 October.
Redrawing the rivers by the flow of sewage
The Committee raised serious concerns about a proposal by the State’s Water Resources Department to redetermine the edges and widths of the Jojari, Bandi and Luni. The Department wanted to base it on the estimated flow of sewage and treated wastewater (para 4).
In a communication of 7 October 2026, the Department justified the exercise by relying on proceedings before the Supreme Court on 22 September 2026. The Committee examined that order and found that the court had not directed that sewage or treated wastewater be the basis for fixing the boundaries or widths of the rivers.
The Department had therefore misconstrued the court’s directions, the Committee said. It warned of attributing to the court a position it had neither directed nor endorsed.
It added that the existing river corridors and their recorded widths are in the records of the Revenue Department and the Water Resources Department. No necessity had been shown for an exercise that might displace them by reference to the volume of sewage in particular stretches.
The Committee proposed a 100-metre additional protective zone and a 500-metre bar on red-category industries (para 6). It gave two examples from the Luni in Balotra district. At Bhituja the recorded width is about 1,172 metres, and at Ajit it is about 794 metres (para 5).
Reducing those widths to about eight metres, on what the Committee called a totally flawed engineering assessment, would leave a narrow channel carrying sewage and effluent. That, it said, would defeat the object of the court’s directions to preserve and restore the river ecosystem.
The Committee recommended that the State be directed to preserve the entire corridors of the Luni, Jojari and Bandi, with their tributaries and distributaries. The boundary to follow is the one recorded by the Revenue Department or the Water Resources Department, whichever reflects the greater extent.
A blueprint that remains incomplete
The Committee pointed out that the comprehensive blueprint for the entire Luni River System, including tributaries and distributaries, remains incomplete despite considerable time. A consolidated, scientifically grounded blueprint, it said, is essential for coordinated restoration and rejuvenation.
It recommended that the outstanding district-wise blueprints be furnished expeditiously. They are to be merged into one plan for the river ecosystem, specifying location-wise restoration measures, the authorities responsible for each and definite timelines (para 7).
Bajri mining across whole riverbeds
The Committee expressed serious concern over indiscriminate and unscientific bajri mining across the Luni-Jojari-Bandi system and its tributaries. It observed extensive excavation over substantial stretches of riverbeds and, at certain locations, practically their entire width.
That, it said, threatens natural flow paths, sediment movement, groundwater recharge and ecological balance (para 8).
It singled out five contiguous mining plots at Village Kanana, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Balotra. Together they span 458.6 hectares and about 8.1 kilometres of riverbed.
Mining has begun in Plots Nos. 201, 203 and 204. Letters of Intent for Plots Nos. 202 and 205 have been accepted, though environmental clearance for them is still pending.
The Committee said illegal mining continues despite available information and a statutory enforcement framework. It recommended immediate action, including seizure of machinery and vehicles, and an independent SIT probe into organised mining and any complicity by public officials, with a grievance mechanism for anonymous complaints (paras 9 and 10).
Because the cumulative ecological impact cannot be judged lease by lease, the Committee recommended reconsidering existing leases wherever necessary to preserve undisturbed stretches. It also recommended withholding environmental clearance for the two pending plots.
Its recommendations included immediate action against illegal mining, with seizure of machinery and vehicles and penal and recovery proceedings. Ongoing operations were to be strictly verified against approved mining plans, and replenishment scientifically assessed before fresh extraction in stretches already excavated.
Effluent plants and zero liquid discharge
On the industrial side, the Committee voiced concern over inadequate progress in setting up and augmenting Common Effluent Treatment Plants and Zero Liquid Discharge facilities in the Jodhpur, Pali and Balotra clusters. Administrative assurances and projected completion dates, it said, cannot substitute for treatment capacity that matches the volume of industrial effluent (para 11).
The Committee accepted the proposed 4 MLD ZLD facility at Jodhpur as an immediate measure, but said it cannot achieve complete ZLD alone. It recommended that the CETP Trust, the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the State ensure, in a time-bound manner, 100% ZLD compliance at CETP, Sangaria, Jodhpur.
What each side told the bench
The bench heard Mr. S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General, and Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for Rajasthan. Mr. Rishabh Sancheti appeared for the applicants, and Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol appeared in person (para 12).
At the hearing on 26 October, Mr. Raju fairly submitted that the Water Resources Department’s exercise of redetermining river widths on the basis of sewage and treated wastewater flow was misconceived. It could not be sustained, he said (para 13).
He added that the State was willing to refrain from granting permission for new industries until the High Flood Line and buffer zones are lawfully determined. That determination, he said, would have regard to the records of the Revenue Department and the Water Resources Department.
Mr. Sancheti appeared for the Jodhpur Pollution Control and Research Foundation, which had put a 4 MLD ZLD proposal before the Committee. The Committee recommended that it be commissioned strictly within the committed timelines. The proposal now needs State approval, and the Foundation asked that the State consider it, including financial assistance (para 14).
Balotra’s groundwater and its textile units
Mr. Jasol raised the precarious groundwater position in the Balotra region. He said the Balotra block, made up of Balotra, Bithuja and Jasol, has been classified as a Dark Zone or Over-Exploited Area since the 1990s under Central Ground Water Authority standards (para 15).
Mr. Jasol said the State had not meaningfully addressed the National Productivity Council report on groundwater contamination in Balotra and Pali, and he questioned why the 2011 moratorium on polluting textile industries was revoked.
He cited the National Green Tribunal order of 9 July 2015 for the position that groundwater extraction for commercial and industrial use is prohibited in such areas. Allowing it when groundwater was already severely depleted, he argued, threatened the region’s water security and ecology.
He also relied on the National Productivity Council report, which he said recorded extensive groundwater contamination in Balotra and Pali. The report called for further hydrological studies to assess the spread and shape a remediation plan.
Mr. Jasol also raised the proposed textile park at Newai, about 30 km from Balotra, and the roughly 135 Effluent Treatment Plant units in the Balotra block. Only a handful, he said, operate in accordance with ZLD norms (para 17).
Starting a process is not compliance
The bench perused the compliance affidavit. It shows that district-level vigilance teams have been formed, action has begun against illegal industrial units, and environmental compensation is being assessed and recovered. But a substantial number of the initiatives contemplated by the court’s directions are still under consideration at the level of the State Government or its departments (para 18).
The bench held that the initiation of administrative processes, by itself,
“cannot be treated as fulfilment of the directions issued by this Court” (para 18)
What is required, it said, is effective implementation on the ground, within definite timelines and under clearly identified institutional responsibility. The State cannot be allowed to let bureaucratic delay frustrate the directions, given the urgency and gravity of the concerns.
Leases granted over areas of illegal mining
The bench found one aspect of the affidavit particularly concerning. It relates to the stand of the Department of Mines and Geology on illegal gravel mining in the Luni, Jojari and Bandi rivers and the tributaries of the Luni (para 19).
The State reported that in several areas where illegal gravel mining had been detected, mining leases were later granted under the prescribed procedure. Mining there, it said, is now regulated and sustainable, and illegal mining is detected only in isolated areas, against which action is being taken.
The bench said that a lease granted under the prescribed procedure does not, by itself, show that the grant is environmentally sustainable. Nor does it show that the grant is consistent with preserving the natural course, riverbed and ecological integrity of the rivers (para 20).
Where illegal mining was earlier detected, a later lease over the same area cannot dispel the concern without an independent, scientifically informed assessment of cumulative environmental impact.
Accepting the State’s explanation without scrutiny, the bench said, would risk reducing illegal mining to a question of post facto regularisation. That would lend legitimacy to operations that were otherwise illegal (para 21).
Compliance with the procedure for granting a lease and compliance with environmental safeguards in actual mining are distinct requirements, it said. The former cannot substitute for the latter.
On the Mining Department’s conduct, the bench said:
“We deprecate the apparent attempt on the part of the Mining Department” (para 22)
The Department appeared to be legitimising illegal riverbed mining by granting leases afterwards, rather than acting against those responsible. The bench said it shall consider directing action against the officers found responsible for permitting or facilitating such activities.
The State cannot discharge its duty to protect the rivers by reporting the number of cases detected, FIRs registered, penalties recovered or leases granted. The question, the bench said, is whether the measures can prevent further degradation and secure restoration (para 23).
Freeze on new units, and buffer zones
The bench then issued directions, lettered A to H, in para 24. Under direction A, in view of Mr. Raju’s submission, it restrained the State from granting any further permission for new industrial units along or near the riverine ecosystem.
The restraint lasts until the High Flood Line and the buffer zones are scientifically determined, having due regard to the records of the Revenue Department and the Water Resources Department.
In addition, a protective zone of 100 metres must be maintained on either side of the rivers’ recorded outer boundaries. No Red Category industry may be established within 500 metres of those boundaries.
A three-day deadline for the SIT
Under direction B, Rajasthan must constitute a Special Investigation Team within three days from the date of receipt of the order. An officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police must head it, and it must include, among others, the Superintendents of Police of Jodhpur, Balotra and Pali.
The SIT must comprehensively investigate organised illegal bajri mining affecting the Luni, Jojari and Bandi rivers and their tributaries. It must identify the persons and entities involved, the networks through which bajri is extracted, transported and sold, and the beneficiaries.
It must also examine the role, if any, of public officials, including collusion, dereliction of duty, or failure to act despite knowledge of the violations. Action must then be initiated, in accordance with law, against all persons found responsible.
Under direction C, the SIT must file a status report on or before the next date of hearing. The report must set out the progress of the investigation and the steps taken on the directions.
Under direction F, the Integrated Public Reporting and Environmental Grievance Redressal Mechanism, ordered on 7 August 2026, must include a facility for anonymised complaints. It covers illegal bajri mining and other unlawful activities affecting the riverine ecosystem, with the complaints recorded, examined and referred to the competent authorities.
Groundwater affidavits, ZLD aid and reuse pipelines
Under direction D, Rajasthan must file a separate affidavit on the issues in Mr. Jasol’s Note. It must respond to the matters raised and set out the action taken or proposed.
Under direction E, the Registry must implead the Central Ground Water Authority within one week of receiving the order. The Authority must then file an affidavit on groundwater availability, extraction and depletion in Jodhpur, Balotra and Pali, with its assessment of the prevailing position.
Under direction G, the State must frame a comprehensive policy for financial assistance to industrial units that want to set up ZLD plants. Until then, it must consider applications for ZLD plants and the associated pipeline network case by case, after technical appraisal and verification, and decide expeditiously.
Under direction H, the State must take steps to build a redistribution pipeline network to carry and reuse treated wastewater and RO permeate. The aim is optimum use by industrial units and less effluent discharged into the rivers. It must examine the technical and financial requirements and prepare a time-bound plan.
Amici appointed, hearing on 27 November
Citing the complex and multifaceted nature of the issues, the bench appointed Mr. Balbir Singh, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Namit Saxena, Advocate-on-Record, as Amici Curiae (para 25).
The Registry must send a copy of the order to Justice Sangeet Lodha, a retired judge of the Rajasthan High Court, and to Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Mr. Balbir Singh and Mr. Namit Saxena. The matters are to be listed again on 27 November 2026 as part-heard (paras 26 and 27).
A closed textile unit asks about the NGT
The same order disposes of separate applications by Bherawa Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd., Interlocutory Application Nos. 324760 and 324761. Mr. Sancheti, appearing for it, sought a limited clarification on the effect of the court’s orders of 18 March 2026 and 29 May 2026 (para 28).
The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board revoked the unit’s Consent to Operate, valid until 31 January 2030, by an order of 18 August 2026 and directed it to close. On 24 August the unit appealed to the National Green Tribunal under Section 16(c) of the NGT Act, 2010, as Appeal No. 14 of 2026 (CZ).
When the Board relied on this court’s orders, the Tribunal directed on 28 September that the proceedings would be governed by them. The unit withdrew its appeal on 5 October, without adjudication on merits.
Counsel argued that the Board’s order was a subsequent and independent regulatory action whose legality has not been examined. The court’s orders, he said, should not be read as extinguishing the Tribunal’s appellate jurisdiction (para 29).
Why the NGT door stays open
The bench recalled that its orders of 18 March and 29 May 2026 required the Rajasthan authorities and the Board to act against units operating in breach of statutory requirements, Consent to Operate conditions or environmental standards (para 30).
It had also directed that industries ordered closed must not resume without the court’s prior leave and express permission. Those directions, the bench said, must be read in light of their object and scope, which is enforcing environmental safeguards and regulating resumption of operations (para 31).
The bench held that the directions cannot be construed as excluding or extinguishing the Tribunal’s statutory appellate jurisdiction. That jurisdiction extends to the legality and sustainability of an independent Board order (para 32).
A challenge to the legality of such an order is distinct from permission to resume operations, it said. The Tribunal’s exercise of its jurisdiction would not dilute the court’s directions or entitle a unit to resume contrary to them.
Order
Bherawa Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd.’s applications were disposed of with liberty to approach the National Green Tribunal for restoration of Appeal No. 14 of 2026 (CZ). If such an application is filed, the Tribunal must decide it on its own merits, in accordance with law and in light of the court’s observations (para 33).
The order is signed by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta and is dated New Delhi, 26 October 2026.