India's First Environmental Referendum: How Tribal People Protected the Environment

• Date: 01 July 2015

45 ELR 10656 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 7-2015

India’s First Environmental

Referendum: How Tribal People

Protected the Environment

by Mahesh Menon

Mahesh Menon is Assistant Professor of Law at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences.

I. Introduction

In an unprecedented event in 2013, a group of tribal vil-

lagers in the Indian state of Orissa (also k nown a s Odi-

sha) rejected the proposal of Vedanta Aluminium Ltd.

to mine for bau xite in their territory.1 e rejection was

made through environmental referendums held pursu-

ant to orders of the Supreme Court of India. e result

of the referendums put to rest, at lea st for now, the plans

of Vedanta Resources PLC, a London-based major mining

company, to mine for bauxite in the Niyamgiri range, a

hill tract that the Dongria Kondh, t he local tribal group,

considers to be one of their sacred sites. Although the refer-

endums have now forced the government to deny permis-

sion to mine at Niyamgiri,2 closer analysis reveals systemic

failures of all government agencies involved in this project

to consider the interests of the Kondh tribal people, and it

is reasonable to expect that the environmental victory may

be short-lived.

e Niyamgiri hill ra nge spreads across the Kalahandi

and Rayagada districts of the state of Orissa in eastern

India. e hills are home to one of the most pristine forests

in India and a variety of wildlife; a proposal has been made

to establish a wildlife sanctuary there.3 e economy of the

Dongria Kondhs, one of the oldest indigenous tribal popu-

lations of India, is based on hunting, gathering, and subsis-

tence agriculture, for which the fertile lands and ecology of

the Niyamgiri are vital.4 e group follows syncretic beliefs

1. Arumina Mishra, Tribals in Orissa’s Niyamgiri Hills Reject Vedanta’s Baux-

ite Mining Project, B T (Sept. 15, 2013), http://businesstoday.

intoday.in/st ory/orissa- niyamgiri-rej ects-vedanta- entry-impact -reasons/

1/197972.html.

2. Special Correspondent, Posco Cleared, Vedanta Loses Bid for Niyamgiri Proj-

ect, T H (Jan. 11, 2014), http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/

posco-cleared-vedanta-loses-bid-for -niyamgiri-project/article5561906.ece

(last visited Feb. 27, 2015).

3. M  E’  F (MEF), R   F M

C  I I  P S  O-

 M C  B M  N (2010), available

at http://envfor.nic.in/sites/default/les/Saxena_Vedanta-1.pdf [hereinafter

Saxena Committee Report].

4. Survival International, Dongria Kondh, http://www.survivalinternational.

org/tribes/dongria (last visited Mar. 5, 2015).

combined with animism, and within their religious order,

the highest importance is given to the Dharani penu (Earth

God) and the Niyam Penu (the Niyamgiri God). Accord-

ingly, the Niyamgiri hills are the very representation of

their living god, their creator and sustainer.5 e Niyam-

giri R ange is also rich in mineral resources, in particular

bauxite, from which a luminum is derived. Vedanta Alu-

minium Ltd., an Indian subsidiary of Vedanta Resources

PLC, operates a gia nt aluminum renery right at the foot

of the Niyamgiri Hill.

II. Clearance Request and Legal

Maneuverings

Since the early 2000s, the company has been trying to

obtain environmental clearances for mining in the area.

e company entered into an agreement with the state

of Orissa and Orissa Mining Corp. (a fully state-owned

corporation) to create a Special Purpose Vehicle for the

mining project. Because mining at Niyamgiri requires t he

diversion of forest lands for non-forest purposes, the com-

pany approached the Supreme Court of India seeking per-

mission to divert forest lands.6

In 2005, the Centra l Empowered C ommittee (CEC),

a body constituted by the Supreme Court to assist it with

applications for diversion of forest la nds, recommended

that forest la nds not be diverted for the company’s proj-

ect. In its report, t he CEC highlighted a number of ille-

galities committed by the company, including submission

of incorrect information on the ex tent of the forest lands

required; star ting construction even before the clearances

were obtained; and violation of the provisions of the Forest

Conservation Act.7 e CEC also pointed out that lands

5. Id.

6. In India, for all non-forest- related uses of forest lands, approval of the Su-

preme Court is mandatory. See T.N. Godavarman irumulpad v. Union of

India, Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in W.P. (c) No. 202/1995.

7. C E C., R  I.A. N. 1324 R 

A R P B S U  M/S V A L.

 L  K D, O (2015), http://www.indi-

Copyright © 2015 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.