On Saranda forests, Jharkhand must respect SC order

In November last year, the Supreme Court asked the Jharkhand government to notify 314 sq km of the Saranda forests in the state’s West Singhbhum district as a wildlife sanctuary. The order came after the apex court had pulled up the state government on at least two occasions for failing to comply with its directives on checking illegal mining in the biodiverse forests. However, after assuring the Court of compliance, the Hemant Soren government has dilly-dallied over protecting one of Asia’s largest sal forest ecosystems. It has missed the February deadline for declaring Saranda a wildlife sanctuary and instead filed two review petitions before the SC — the last on April 30. The state government’s argument — according protected area status to the forests would curtail the rights of indigenous people — flies in the face of the SC’s clarifications. The Court has repeatedly said that individual and community rights under the Forest Rights Act will remain protected and traditional livelihoods will not be displaced by conservation efforts.

The Saranda forests are among the country’s most important elephant corridors. Mining operations have, over the past two decades, altered the ecosystem’s integrity. They have disrupted the migratory routes of elephants and forced them to move through human settlements and fields, leading to increased human-animal conflict across Jharkhand and neighbouring Odisha and West Bengal. A study published last year in Ecology and Evolution reported that rampaging elephants had killed more than 1,300 people in Jharkhand between 2000 and 2023. Deforestation also weakens watershed systems, accelerates soil erosion, hampers local climate resilience, and affects agriculture and people’s livelihoods. The Jharkhand government is, therefore, ill-advised in framing conservation as a choice between forests and indigenous communities. It should see the protection of the sal forests as a matter of long-term ecological security.

Jharkhand’s prevarication reflects a deeper and troubling pattern — a widening chasm between judicial directives and executive action on environmental matters. Whether in the inadequate response to Delhi’s deteriorating air quality, the bypassing of Court orders aimed at protecting the fragile Himalayan ecology, or dilution of safeguards within coastal zones, the executive has too often failed to match the judiciary’s interventions with meaningful enforcement. Public faith in environmental governance is undermined when governments offer assurances before courts and then delay or dilute implementation. The Jharkhand government should course correct and listen to the SC.