Supreme Court Allows Oil India to File Fresh Plea Over Rejected Drilling Proposal Near Dibru-Saikhowa National Park

The Supreme Court has permitted state-owned Oil India Limited (OIL) to withdraw an interlocutory application and file a fresh petition challenging the rejection of its proposal for Extended Reach Drilling (ERD) linked to hydrocarbon extraction beneath Assam's Dibru-Saikhowa National Park.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who appeared for Oil India and urged that the matter was extremely urgent. The counsel submitted that the project concerns nearly three per cent of the country's oil requirement and that the area lies on the fringes of the national park.

Advocate Dwivedi argued before the bench that all necessary permissions had been granted previously, but the government currently considers itself bound by a 2023 Supreme Court order banning mining. He emphasized that the proposed operations do not constitute mining, explaining that the pipeline is laid outside the park and proceeds horizontally 4,000 metres underground.

The application was originally filed within a pending case titled TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India, a landmark 1995 litigation that has shaped forest conservation and environmental jurisprudence in India. However, because the court's registry was not numbering the interlocutory application due to prior directions restricting such applications in the pending matter, the Chief Justice advised the applicant to institute 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 Chief Justice stated during the proceedings. The bench subsequently allowed the interlocutory application to be withdrawn with the liberty to file a fresh petition.

Through its legal challenge, the public sector undertaking is targeting the August 2, 2024 order passed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and the July 4, 2024 minutes of the MoEFCC's Forest Advisory Committee. These authorities had refused approval for the diversion of 0.069 hectares of forest land for the project in Tinsukia district, citing the Supreme Court's April 26, 2023 judgment that prohibits mining within national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and within one kilometre of their boundaries.

Oil India has contended that authorities wrongly applied the 2023 judgment, maintaining that hydrocarbon exploration and production through ERD cannot be equated with conventional mining. According to the company, oil and gas operations follow a separate legal and regulatory framework. The technique involves drilling from pads located outside the protected area to target hydrocarbon deposits at depths of around 3,500 to 4,000 metres beneath the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, while keeping all drilling infrastructure outside the park boundary.

The company's plea further references earlier top court orders from 2017, when it was permitted under specific conditions and safeguards to extract hydrocarbons beneath the national park using ERD technology. OIL also noted that the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife had previously recommended the proposal, and that it received environmental clearance in May 2020 for extension drilling and testing at seven locations beneath the park, subject to prior forest land approvals.

"This case highlights the intricate balance between national energy security and environmental jurisprudence. For large public sector undertakings and industrial projects operating near ecologically sensitive zones, regulatory clarity and procedural compliance are critical. When legal frameworks evolve, businesses must navigate judicial pathways carefully to ensure long-term project viability while adhering strictly to environmental safeguards." — Dr. Shishir Gupta, Founder & CEO, StartupLanes