The Supreme Court sought responses from the Centre and Assam on Oil India’s plea over rejection of its extended reach drilling proposal
Oil India has challenged the Forest Advisory Committee’s decision and the Environment Ministry’s refusal to divert 0.069 hectares of forest land
The company says the project at Baghjan PML in Tinsukia district is for hydrocarbon extraction beneath Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, not conventional mining
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the Assam government on Oil India’s plea challenging the rejection of its Extended Reach Drilling proposal linked to hydrocarbon extraction beneath Dibru-Saikhowa National Park.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi for Oil India. He told the court the plea needed immediate attention because the PSU could not continue exploration in the area. The case will come up again after November 17.
Drilling Proposal Challenge
Oil India has questioned the Forest Advisory Committee’s ruling and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s refusal to clear the use of 0.069 hectares of forest land for the project.
The company has sought setting aside of the ministry’s August 2, 2024 order and the minutes of the Forest Advisory Committee’s July 4, 2024 meeting. The project relates to the Baghjan PML in Tinsukia Wildlife Division in Tinsukia district of Assam.
In its plea, the company argued that authorities wrongly applied the Supreme Court’s April 26, 2023 judgment that prohibited mining inside national parks and wildlife sanctuaries and within 1 km of their boundaries. Oil India has sought a specific direction from the court to clear the land use request.
"Direct the respondent No.1 to grant approval under section 2(1)(ii) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 for non-forestry use of 0.069 hectare of forest land for Extended Reach Drilling under Dibru Saikhowa National Park from Baghjan PML in Tinsukia Wildlife Division, Tinsukia in the State of Assam," the plea said.
Court Hearing Details
He told the bench Oil India could not proceed with exploration work and argued that the area near the national park holds an estimated 3 per cent of India’s total hydrocarbon reserves. He also described the company’s plan as different from mining barred by the court’s 2023 order.
"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.
The bench indicated it may permit exploration work on the basis of research and development reports from authorities, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. On September 2, it allowed Oil India to withdraw an interlocutory application and seek relief through a fresh petition.
"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 said.
The bench then allowed that course. "The interlocutory application, as requested, is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition," the bench said.
Technical And Legal Basis
Oil India has argued that extended reach drilling is not the same as conventional mining.
The company said ERD would go more than 4,000 metres below the surface and would not harm the flora and fauna of Dibru-Saikhowa National Park. It argued that hydrocarbon exploration and production through ERD cannot be equated with conventional mining.
Oil India further told the court that oil and gas operations are governed by a separate legal and regulatory framework. It said ERD involves drilling from pads outside the protected area to reach hydrocarbon reservoirs several kilometres below the surface.
The proposed drilling, the company said, would target deposits around 3,500 to 4,000 metres beneath the park. At the same time, the drilling infrastructure would remain outside the park boundary.
Prior Approvals And Context
The dispute comes out of proceedings in TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India, a 1995 case that has shaped forest conservation and environmental jurisprudence. Dwivedi told the court the earlier application had been filed in that pending matter.
Oil India has relied on orders from 2017, when the Supreme Court permitted it, subject to conditions and safeguards, to extract hydrocarbons beneath the national park using ERD technology. The company said the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife had recommended the proposal and that the top court later allowed sub-surface extraction subject to environmental and wildlife protection conditions.
The plea also refers to the Eco-Sensitive Zone notification issued for Dibru-Saikhowa National Park in January 2020. Under that notification, the eco-sensitive zone extends from zero to 8.7 km around parts of the park boundary.
Oil India also told the court it received environmental clearance in May 2020 for extension drilling and testing of hydrocarbons at seven locations beneath the national park. It added that drilling in forest areas still required separate prior approval.
The case matters because it could shape how hydrocarbon extraction projects using extended reach drilling are treated under forest clearance rules near protected areas
