Assam: Gauhati High Court asks centre to explain rejection of drilling proposal in Dibru-Saikhowa

The Gauhati High Court on August 28  directed the Central Government to inform the court whether the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has actually turned down the proposal for Extended Reach Drilling (ERD) inside the ecologically sensitive Dibru-Saikhowa National Park. Any such decision has to be placed on record.

The order was passed by a division bench headed by Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Suman Shyam while hearing the public interest litigation filed by Mrinmoy Khataniar and Amar Jyoti Deka. 

The PIL has questioned the legality of the environmental clearance accorded to Oil India Limited by MoEFCC on June 11, 2020 for extension drilling and hydrocarbon testing at seven locations within the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park. 
The counsel for the petitioner referred to various media reports that have confirmed the ministry's position on the issue. Despite the ongoing deliberations on a similar issue in the Supreme Court, the High Court has taken a proactive approach, directing the Central Government to provide a comprehensive status report within four weeks.

The petitioners also contended that Dibru-Saikhowa was declared a national park and biosphere reserve with effect from 1997 and required to be strictly protected on the principles of ecology.

The direction by the court came after counsel appearing for petitioners informed it that as per media reports, MoEFCC has rejected the proposal of ERD in the matter on 5th of August 2024. Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the central government sought four weeks to inform the status and decisions, if any, in the matter.

It has other vital environmental concerns, too, as the Dibru-Saikhowa is a protected area on the southern bank of Brahmaputra River in eastern Assam. The petitioners pointed out that due to its very special status as a park and biosphere reserve, all activities affecting its fragile ecosystem should be subjected to a process of careful thought.

The mandate issued by the court further referred to a notification of MoEFCC in 2006, stating that any such activity related to oil and gas projects must necessarily be with prior environmental clearance and public hearing. But due to certain modifications and suggestions in 2017, such projects were recategorized, and the existing categorization was excluded from public hearing- indeed, a bone of contention in this litigation. The petitioners contended that this exemption poses far-reaching questions on transparency and also on environmental scrutiny of the drilling activities.

Oil India Limited had earlier proposed the application of Extended Reach Drilling technology to reach hydrocarbon resources lying underneath the park without actually drilling inside its confines. But while this is theoretically possible, with no real drilling ever going on inside the park's perimeter, the high court's interest in a status report suggests judicial oversight is ongoing over the environmentally charged balancing act facing policy makers and energy developers.