Assam gas leak: PCB serves show-cause notice to ONGC for unauthorised operations
Nearly 350 families were shifted to other places after authorities failed to control the situation after the gas leak, prompting chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma to suggest the company seal the well permanently.
A special team from the United States was called, and the team reached Assam last Friday. The ONGC authorities on Sunday informed them that the flow of the gas leak has been slowed down, and additional machines have been brought to seal the well permanently.
PCBA on June 21 issued a notice accusing ONGC of operating Well No. 147 at Bhatiapar–Barichuk in the Rudrasagar oilfield without securing the mandatory Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) under multiple environmental legislations.
According to PCBA, the ONGC has violated the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules, 2016.
Calling it a serious breach, PCBA said, 'This notice reinforces the principle that no entity is exempt from environmental compliance, regardless of its size or status.'
ONGC has been given 15 days to respond, failing which legal action, including penalties and Environmental Compensation Fines (ECFs) may be initiated under a 2019 National Green Tribunal order.
According to PCBA, the ONGC authorities were advised to obtain the necessary environmental permissions in the past, but the instructions were allegedly ignored.
PCBA said that the notice was issued after a recent inspection and during a visit, the special team found uncontrolled gas emissions from the well in Sivasagar, heightening concerns over environmental degradation and public health hazards.
ONGC confirmed that gas pressure had significantly dropped and preparations had begun to seal the well.
'The noticeable reduction in gas pressure is a positive sign. Our teams, along with international experts, are now focused on the final capping operation,' ONGC said in a statement.
Officials said that ONGC's Regional Crisis Management Team (RCMT) and the US experts are overseeing the operation round-the-clock and an extra-long boom crane was brought from Guwahati to remove tubings stacked on the rig, a crucial step in clearing the site for final sealing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How clean energy needs, new tech shape mineral governance in India
— Renuka In a significant policy move, the Ministry of Mines has reclassified minor minerals Barytes, Felspar, Mica, and Quartz as major minerals. These minerals are essential for various new technologies, energy transition, spacecraft industries, the healthcare sector, etc. This reclassification, announced through a Notification dated February 20, 2025, aligns with the government's recent push under the National Critical Mineral Mission, which aims to secure critical and strategic mineral resources for India's clean energy and technological future. It also draws attention to a largely overlooked area in India's mineral governance – the regulation of minor minerals. But what are minor minerals, and how are they regulated? Let's explore. Minor minerals are defined under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act, 1957, as building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, and ordinary sand. The term 'minor minerals' is often understood to imply a lesser quantity of significance. However, in the Quarry Owners Association vs State of Bihar (2000) case, the Supreme Court clarified that the classification of minerals as major or minor under the MMDR Act is determined by their end use and local importance, rather than by their volume, availability or production levels. The classification is also for the purpose of administrative convenience: while the Central Government retains control over major minerals with national and strategic relevance, like coal, iron ore or bauxite, the regulation and management of minor minerals fall under the purview of state governments. The Central Government also has the authority to declare any other mineral to be a minor mineral. It has thus far notified around 31 minerals as minor minerals such as Gypsum, Mica, Quartz, Clay-based minerals, Sand, etc. Minor minerals play a crucial role in infrastructure, manufacturing and local economies. They are primarily sourced from riverbeds, floodplains, hills, coastal areas, deserts, and open quarries across various states. Extraction typically takes place on a small to medium scale and is governed by state authorities. Silica-rich minerals like Quartz and Silica sand are commonly found in riverbeds and desert regions. They are used extensively in glassmaking and electronics. Sand is a vital component of concrete, mortar, and asphalt, making it essential for buildings, roads, and other infrastructure. Feldspar, Mica, and Kaolin are mostly used in ceramics, paints, and rubber industries. Similarly, limestone derivatives like Calcite, Gypsum and Lime kankar are essential for construction and chemical processing. The barytes, recently classified as a major mineral, is primarily used in oil and gas drilling. These minerals, though locally sourced and often extracted on a small scale, are vital to India's construction boom and industrial growth. However, their unchecked extraction, especially in ecologically sensitive areas, raises serious concerns around sustainability, environmental impact and regulatory oversight. Under the Indian Constitution, states are vested with the power to make laws on mines and minerals under List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule. However, under List I (Union List), the Central Government can also make laws on the regulation of mines and minerals by declaring it in the public interest. Exercising this authority, the Central Government enacted the MMDR Act in 1957 – a key legislation regulating the mining sector. The Act classifies the minerals into two categories: major and minor and provides the legal framework for the grant of mining leases, royalty collection, and overall management of major mineral resources. Section 15 of the Act delegates the rule-making power to the state governments in relation to minor minerals. It empowers states to frame rules for granting leases, issuing permits, and fixing and collecting rent and royalties from the holders of mining leases and permits. This delegation of rule-making power ensures that states can design regulatory mechanisms to suit local needs. Further, given the significant environmental impact, the minor minerals are also regulated under laws related to pollution, wildlife and biodiversity protection, etc. On the policy front, the Central Government has historically prioritised major minerals, while minor minerals have largely been governed through state-specific policies and rules. However, growing environmental concerns – particularly related to sand mining from rivers and floodplains – have prompted central intervention. In response, the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC) issued Sand Mining guidelines in 2016 and 2020, and the Ministry of Mines released a Sand Mining Framework in 2018. The Supreme Court, High Courts and the National Green Tribunal have played a pivotal role in regulating the mining of minor minerals, especially by mandating Environmental clearances for extracting minor minerals. In the landmark case of Deepak Kumar vs State of Haryana (2012), the Supreme Court took notice of the unscientific and illegal mining of minor minerals and made it mandatory for all mining operations, even below five hectares, to obtain environmental clearances from the appropriate authority. The court also recommended a compulsory mining plan before granting environmental clearance. Notably, through various judgements, the Supreme Court has emphasised the need for the sustainable extraction of minor minerals. Following the apex court's decision in Deepak Kumar vs State of Haryana (2012), the MoEFCC in 2013 notified that the river sand mining project with a lease area of less than five hectares should not be considered for environmental clearance. However, the notification was declared invalid by the National Green Tribunal in Himmat Singh Shekhawat vs State of Rajasthan (2014). Similarly, in Satendra Pandey vs the Union of India (2018), the NGT struck down a notification dated January 15, 2016 on the ground that it diluted the environmental clearance procedure for mining of minor minerals in areas below 25 hectares. The notification exempted such projects from public consultation and environmental impact assessment prior to granting environmental clearance. Despite state regulations and judicial oversight, the mining sector continues to grapple with widespread issues, particularly illegal and unscientific mining. States like Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh have become the hotspots of illegal sand mining. It is causing severe environmental degradation, such as lowering of groundwater levels in riparian areas, pollution in nearby areas, and disruption of the aquatic ecosystem. Sand and gravel extraction from rivers is one of the leading reasons behind the declining population of the Gharial and Ganges River dolphins. Apart from this, excessive mining of clay from agricultural fields leads to loss of soil fertility and long-term land degradation. Mining has also become a law-and-order issue due to rampant illegal extraction, violent clashes between miners and law enforcement, as well as threats and attacks on activists, journalists and officials attempting to curb the practice. Given the ecological importance of minor minerals, there is an urgent need for strong political and bureaucratic will to ensure their sustainable management. Upholding the Public trust doctrine, the state needs to act as a trustee of these resources and ensure the leasing of mines serves the public interest. Strict law enforcement, adoption of sustainable construction practices and promotion of viable alternatives to natural resource extraction are significant. A comprehensive model regulatory framework across states is needed to harmonise laws, ensure transparency and integrate environmental safeguards with development goals. What are minor minerals, and how are they regulated in India? What is the constitutional division of powers between the Centre and states on the regulation of minerals? How has intervention, particularly by the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal, shaped the regulatory landscape for minor mineral mining? What are the ecological consequences of unregulated sand and clay mining, and how effective have existing regulations been in addressing these challenges? How does minor mineral extraction impact biodiversity, particularly endangered aquatic species such as the Gharial and Ganges River dolphin? (Renuka is a Doctoral researcher at Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Mint
8 minutes ago
- Mint
Only tax-verified non-profits can now execute CSR work, says govt
New Delhi: The government has tightened disclosure norms for non-profits executing corporate social responsibility (CSR) projects on behalf of companies, introducing a more detailed registration process to ensure only genuine, tax-compliant entities receive CSR funds. According to a new version of Form CSR-1 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), trusts, societies, and not-for-profit companies must now submit a more structured application with enhanced disclosures to be eligible to implement CSR activities. The updated form, effective 14 July, reflects a push to align corporate giving with tax law and financial scrutiny. The move aims to prevent shell or bogus entities from accessing CSR funds and ensure that recipient organizations meet the criteria laid out in the Income Tax Act. It also expands the categories of eligible institutions. Over the last few years, the Income Tax Department has raised the reporting requirements for charitable trusts to prevent the abuse of this legal form for tax evasion. The latest move to streamline registration for CSR implementation is part of the overall effort to improve transparency. The updated Form CSR-1 also broadens the scope of entities eligible to register. Under the earlier regime, only those registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, which certifies an entity as a genuine charitable institution, could apply. The revised form now allows entities that qualify for tax exemptions under Section 10(23C) of the Act, such as universities and hospitals, to register for executing CSR work as well. The new version of the form includes more elaborate fields compared to the earlier format, explained Subodh Dandawate, associate director, Regulatory Services at Nexdigm, a business advisory firm. A key change in the revised form is the mandatory requirement to furnish a copy of the registration certificate issued by the Income Tax Department under Sections 80G and 12A, as applicable, of the Income Tax Act, said Amit Maheshwari of AKM Global, a tax and consulting firm. 'This effectively means that implementing agencies must obtain income tax registration prior to receiving any CSR funds from corporations,' said Maheshwari. 'The amendment is a progressive step towards greater transparency and regulatory alignment in CSR implementation, ensuring that CSR funds are routed only through tax-verified and credible entities.' This move is expected to enhance stakeholder confidence and promote more effective deployment of CSR funds, enabling companies to engage with credible and mission-aligned partners in their social impact initiatives, Maheshwari said. It also reflects a broader policy direction towards aligning corporate philanthropy with regulatory governance and financial oversight, he said. In FY24, over 27,000 companies spent over ₹ 34,900 crore on CSR, led by HDFC Bank, Reliance Industries Ltd, and Tata Consultancy Services. The number of trusts and other entities implementing CSR projects is not readily available.
Indian Express
35 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Porsche car crash: JJB rejects police plea for trying 17 yr old minor driver as an adult
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has today rejected the application by the Pune city police seeking an order that the minor accused in the Porsche car crash be tried as an adult. Two IT engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and his friend Ashwini Koshta, both aged 24 and hailing from Madhya Pradesh, were killed after the speeding Porsche driven by a 17-year-old boy allegedly in an inebriated state hit their motorcycle around 2.30 am on May 19, 2024. Same day, a first information report (FIR) was lodged against the minor car driver at the Yerwada police station. Subsequently, citing sections of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Pune city police filed an application at JJB, seeking an order that the child in conflict with law (CCL) be tried as an adult in this case. Prosecution had argued that CCL (minor car driver) accused committed a 'heinous offence' and was driving the Porsche car after consuming liquor despite knowing its consequences The defence lawyer opposed the application saying the present offence cannot be legally termed as 'heinous. The defence lawyer had also argued that the object of Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act is 'reformative' and not 'punitive'. A senior police officer confirmed that the JJB today passed an order in favour of the CCL. Earlier, when police had detained the minor and produced him before the JJB on May 19, he was granted by the JJB on conditions that he would 'write an essay of 300 words' on 'topic in effect of road accidents and their solutions', assist RTO officers and practice and study traffic rules for 15 days. But, following a public uproar, the minor was sent to an observation home on May 22. Apparently, the police again submitted applications at the JJB on May 21 and May 22, for trying the CCL as an adult. The minor's paternal aunt had then moved a plea before the high court (HC) and sought his release, claiming that as per the JJ Act 2015, it needs to be ensured that any conflict with the law does not result in him turning into a hardened criminal. On June 25, the HC ordered the minor's release and that he be handed over into the care of his paternal aunt. Subsequently, the minor was released from the observation home. Meanwhile, the police investigation had revealed that when the minor driver, who is son of a prominent realtor, was taken to the government-run Sassoon Hospital after the accident for a medical examination, his blood sample was allegedly replaced with his mother's. A police probe also confirmed that blood samples of the two friends of the minor driver, who were in the Porsche at the time of the accident, were also swapped at Sassoon hospital. Police arrested and chargesheeted ten persons including the minor's parents, Dr Ajay Taware, the then head of the Forensic Medicine Department of Sassoon Hospital, Dr Shrihari Halnor, the casualty medical officer at the time, Atul Ghatkamble, a morgue staff and others. They are booked under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 304, 279, 338, 337, 427, 120 (b), 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109 and sections of the Motor Vehicle Act and Prevention of Corruption Act. Special public prosecutor (SPP) Shishir Hiray had argued at the JJB that minor accused had been booked under IPC sections 467 (forgery) and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which attract punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment for up to ten year. 'So he has committed a 'heinous offence' as per section 2 (33) of JJ Act, which says that offences having punishment of imprisonment for seven years or more are 'heinous', Hiray had argued. Prosecution had submitted that in case of a heinous offence, as per section 15 (1) of JJ Act, the JJB shall conduct a preliminary assessment of a minor's mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, his ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the said crime. Prosecution submitted that after the preliminary assessment under section 15 (1), the JJB can, under section 18 (3) of the JJ Act, pass an order for trial of the minor as an adult. SPP Hiray had argued before the JJB the actual driver of the Porsche had asked the minor not to drive the car. 'But still the minor drove the Porsche after consuming liquor and committed the crime. He knew the consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was present at the Sassoon hospital when his blood samples were swapped. He knew swapping blood samples was a crime. So he was aware of the consequences of the offence and should be tried as an adult,' Hiray had said. Defence lawyer Prashant Patil submitted before the JJB that the CCL has no prior criminal record and the Porsche crash incident, though unfortunate, arose out of a moment of poor judgement, not criminal intention. Citing a Supreme Court judgement in Shilpa Mittal versus State of Delhi case, Patil had claimed that the present offence may not legally qualify as 'heinous' and hence section (15) of JJ Act should not be invoked in this case. Patil had also submitted that as per section 2 (12) of JJ Act, any person below the age of 18 years is considered a child. Patil argued the goal of juvenile justice is to 'rehabilitate' and not to punish the minor in the same way as for adults.
