Centre’s no to public hearing on atomic mining draws ire

CHENNAI: The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has issued a controversial office memorandum exempting mining projects for all critical, strategic and atomic minerals from the requirement of public consultation under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of 2006, leading to protests from environmental NGOs.

Poovulagin Nanbargal, fighting for socio-environmental issues, criticised the decision as “dangerous” and an infringement of the Constitutional rights of States and local communities.

The order, dated September 8, follows requests from the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Atomic Energy. Citing the need for rare earth elements and other critical minerals for defence equipment, surveillance systems and nuclear energy programmes, the two departments sought exemption from public hearings for mining proposals.

The Environment Ministry said the move was necessary to meet national defence and security requirements and to speed up projects linked to India’s net-zero emission goal for 2070.

Under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Part D lists 24 critical and strategic minerals, including lithium, cobalt, nickel, gallium and molybdenum, while Part B covers atomic minerals such as thorium, uranium and monazite. Amendments in 2023 allowed private companies to explore and mine some of these resources.

In a statement, the environmental organisation said the order effectively hands over control of India’s mineral wealth to the Centre and private companies, while denying residents a voice in projects that could expose them to radiation and long-term health risks. It warned that beach sand mining for monazite and other minerals in Kanniyakumari, Tirunelveli, Thoothukudi and parts of Kerala had already caused severe coastal erosion and loss of livelihoods.

The group pointed out that the memorandum was issued as an administrative order to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny and public debate. It recalled that the southern bench of the NGT had earlier struck down a similar order.