The peaceful existence of the Dongria Gondh tribe and their practice of sustainable agriculture based on the forest produce was brought under threat when on June 7, 2003, Vedanta Aluminum Limited signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Government of Odisha for the construction of a 1 MTPA (one million ton per annum) alumina refinery, along with a 75megawatt coalbased power plant in the Lanjigarh region of Kalahandi district. For the purpose of obtaining bauxite for this alumina refinery, Vedantaowned Sterlite Industries also entered the picture, with plans to construct an openpit, 3 MTPA bauxite mining plant at the top of the sacred Niyam Dongar mountain. In March 2004, Sterlite applied for environmental clearance to the refinery, arguing that the plant is independent of the proposed mine and falsely claiming that the construction of the refinery will not involve diversion of forestland. Despite several inconsistencies in the application, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) granted clearance to the refinery. While Vedantas dubious methods were being ignored by the MoEFCC, three petitioners subsequently filed applications with the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) of the Supreme Court to investigate the environmental clearances granted. In 2005, in a scathing report to the Supreme Court, the CEC noted that the MoEFCC had wrongfully given clearance to Vedanta and that it had ignored the various environmental threats that would arise from the proposed project, pointing out how the project violated the Forest Rights Act, the Forest (Conservation) Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It recommended that the environmental clearance granted to Vedanta be revoked, the company be directed to stop further work on the project and mining on Niyamgiri Hills be banned. On August 8, 2008 the Supreme Court completely disregarded the CECs recommendations and approved the clearance of forestland for mining in the Niyamgiri Hills. Despite the vociferous protests, environmental clearance was granted to Sterlite Industries in April 2009 for mining operations a decision which spelled doom for the Dongria Kondh tribe. In the aftermath of the Supreme Courts decision, the movement against Vedanta, which had so far been marked by a steady stream of protests, gained momentum. It soon became a transnational movement. Organisations like Survival International and Amnesty International visited the protest site in India regularly and also organised mass rallies outside Vedanta's London office. Witnessing the companys treatment towards the Dongria Kondh tribe and its involvement in the blatant violation of human rights, many international investors like the Norwegian Government Pension Fund, Martin Currie, the Church of England and Marlborough Ethical Fund sold their stocks in the company. Fueled by the continuous protests and mass support for the tribe, the Government of India sent a team of experts to the Niyamgiri Hills in 2010. The Dongria Kondhs emerged victorious on August 21, 2010, when a review of the mining project carried out by the MoEFCC exposed the violation of a number of environmental regulations by the company. After denying the company forest clearance in 2010, then Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh delivered a final blow by revoking Vedantas environmental clearance in July 2011. The Odisha government – through the stateowned company Orissa Mining Corporation petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse the mining ban on Vedanta and to allow the sixfold expansion of the alumina refinery. In a landmark decision for tribes rights in India, the Supreme Court on April 18, 2013, rejected the appeal on the mining ban and decreed that the Dongria Kondh tribe would have a decisive say in giving the goahead to Vedantas mining project. Twelve gram sabhas were chosen by the state government to make the crucial decision. In the three months after the Supreme Court ruling, amidst heavy police presence and persistent threats from Vedanta, 11 gram sabhas voted against the mining project, and on August 19, 2013, the 12th and final gram sabha delivered a resounding No. In January 2014, the MoEFCC, which had earlier aided Vedantas invasion of Niyamgiri, crushed the companys mining ambitions by completely rejecting the project. However, the community and their land continue to be under threat. On February 25, 2016, the OMC filed an application with the Supreme Court, challenging its previous judgement, alleging that the gram sabha resolutions had technical errors; the apex court upheld its earlier judgement by rejecting the OMC's petition. There have been reports of clashes between the tribespeople and the authorities/security forces, with several members of the Niyamgiri Surakhsha Samiti being arrested and paraded as maoists, in what they claim is an attempt by the government to weaken the movement against the refinery's planned expansion and its repeated attempts to review the mining ban. From 2018 onwards, Vedanta has made official announcements regarding its plan to expand its refinery in Langigarh, which has been operational since 2005. Local residents, meanwhile, continue to fight as the refinery has caused ecological degradation in the area. In February 2021, the Board of Directors of Vedanta approved the expansion of the Langigarh plant from 2MTPA to 5MTPA at the cost of INR 3,779 crore seeking for it to be one of the world's largest single location alumni refinery complex.
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Opposition against environmental degradation
Refusal to give up land for the project
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Demand to declare the Niyamgiri hills as Dongria Kondh habitat as per the Forest Rights Act
Region Classification
Rural
Type of Land
Common
Forest
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
4000
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Has the Conflict Ended?
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Forest and Scheduled Area Governance Laws, Environmental Laws, Land Acquisition Laws, Other, Central/State Government Policy, Constitutional Law
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Non-implementation/violation of FRA
Violation of free prior informed consent
Non-implementation/violation of LARR Act
Controversial land acquisition by the government
Violation of environmental laws
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Disposed
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Yes
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Supreme Court of India
Case Number
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 180 OF 2011
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Arrest/detention/imprisonment
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Odisha Mining Corporation
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
No
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Vedanta Aluminium Limited
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Odisha Lok Sangram Manch, Survival International, Amnesty International, Action Aid, Green Kalahandi, Niyamgiri Suraksa Samiti
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?