Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the Assam government on a plea filed by Oil India Limited (OIL) challenging the rejection of its proposal for hydrocarbon exploration beneath Assam’s Dibru-Saikhowa National Park using Extended Reach Drilling (ERD) technology.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took note of submissions by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for Oil India, that the matter was urgent as the public sector undertaking (PSU) was unable to undertake exploration in the area.
Dwivedi told the court that the area surrounding Dibru-Saikhowa National Park is estimated to contain three per cent of India’s total hydrocarbon reserves.
He said the proposed exploration would use ERD technology, involving drilling to depths of more than 4,000 metres, and would not harm the park’s flora and fauna.
The bench indicated that it could consider permitting the exploration work on the basis of research and development reports submitted by the authorities, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
The matter will be taken up after November 17.
The proceedings follow an earlier hearing on September 2, when the bench allowed Oil India to withdraw an interlocutory application and file a fresh petition challenging the rejection of its proposal for ERD-linked hydrocarbon extraction beneath the national park.
During that hearing, Dwivedi had stressed the urgency of the matter, arguing that the proposed project was important for the country’s energy requirements.
“This is extremely urgent because the area is on the fringes of a national park. All permissions have been granted, but the government considers itself bound by a 2023 order of this court banning mining. This is not mining. The pipeline is being laid outside the park. It goes 4,000 metres underground and then proceeds horizontally,” Dwivedi had said.
He had also pointed out that the application was part of the pending case of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India, instituted in 1995, which has played a significant role in shaping forest conservation and environmental jurisprudence.
The Chief Justice had said that the applicant could file a fresh petition if there was a new cause of action.
“We wanted to close that entire matter. If there is a fresh cause, file a fresh petition and we will entertain it. The registry cannot list the interlocutory application because there is an order to that effect,” the CJI had said.
Dwivedi had sought permission to withdraw the interlocutory application with liberty to file a fresh petition, stating that the matter could be taken up either at the beginning or towards the end of the day’s proceedings.
“The interlocutory application, as requested, is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition,” the bench had ordered.
In its plea, Oil India has challenged the decision of the Forest Advisory Committee and the subsequent action of the MoEFCC refusing approval for the diversion of 0.069 hectares of forest land for the project in Assam’s Tinsukia district.
The company has argued that the authorities wrongly applied the Supreme Court’s April 26, 2023, judgment prohibiting mining within national parks and wildlife sanctuaries and within one kilometre of their boundaries.
According to OIL, hydrocarbon exploration and production using ERD technology cannot be equated with conventional mining.
The company has maintained that oil and gas operations are governed by a separate legal and regulatory framework. It has said ERD involves drilling from platforms outside protected areas to reach hydrocarbon reserves located several kilometres beneath the surface.
The proposed wells would target deposits at depths of around 3,500 to 4,000 metres beneath Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, while the drilling infrastructure would remain outside the park’s boundary, the company said.
Oil India has also cited Supreme Court orders passed in 2017 that permitted hydrocarbon extraction beneath the national park through ERD technology, subject to specified conditions and safeguards.
It further submitted that the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife had recommended the proposal and that the Supreme Court subsequently allowed sub-surface hydrocarbon extraction, subject to compliance with environmental and wildlife protection conditions.
The plea also referred to the Eco-Sensitive Zone notification issued for Dibru-Saikhowa National Park in January 2020, under which the eco-sensitive zone extends from zero to 8.7 km around parts of the park’s boundary.
OIL said it had received environmental clearance in May 2020 for extension drilling and hydrocarbon testing at seven locations beneath the national park. However, it added that drilling in forest areas required separate prior approval.
The company has sought the setting aside of the MoEFCC order dated August 2, 2024, as well as the minutes of the ministry’s Forest Advisory Committee meeting held on July 4, 2024.
In its prayer to the court, OIL sought a direction to the ministry to grant approval under Section 2(1)(ii) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, for the non-forestry use of 0.069 hectares of forest land for ERD beneath Dibru-Saikhowa National Park from Baghjan PML in the Tinsukia Wildlife Division of Assam.