Despite commendable policies on paper, the bypassing of flood norms and inconsistent mining regulation reveal a gap between legal intent and ground reality, pushing the region towards a preventable disaster
Suhail Gaznavi
Kashmir’s fragile ecological balance is under severe strain, not merely due to natural pressures but because of sustained legal and administrative failures. This concern is not an argument against development or the construction of government buildings, which are essential for public welfare and governance. The government has, in recent years, introduced several commendable initiatives and enacted important laws aimed at environmental protection. However, development must proceed strictly in accordance with law, prescribed procedure, and environmental safeguards. Unregulated construction, violations of flood norms, and gaps in enforcement have collectively pushed the region towards an environmental and human crisis. What is often justified in the name of “development” increasingly raises serious legal and constitutional concerns.
One of the most pressing issues is the construction of government buildings and infrastructure within designated flood zones without mandatory clearance from the Flood Control Department. Such constructions obstruct natural water channels, block spill paths, and choke wetlands that historically function as flood absorbers. In a flood-vulnerable region like Kashmir, this is not a minor procedural lapse but a serious departure from statutory responsibility with foreseeable consequences.
Floodplains of rivers such as the Jhelum, Lidder, and their tributaries play a vital role in regulating water flow. Encroachments—whether by private actors or public authorities—disturb river morphology and convert heavy rainfall into avoidable disasters. When established flood-control norms are bypassed, institutional accountability becomes diffused, and corrective mechanisms lose effectiveness.
Alongside unregulated construction lies the complex issue of sand and bajri mining, which has a direct bearing on river health as well as local livelihoods. Recognising that a blanket ban often fuels illegal extraction and marginalises traditional workers, the government has moved towards a regulated mining framework aimed at balancing environmental protection with employment needs. This approach, however, requires consistent and transparent implementation to achieve its stated objectives.
Under the J&K Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, provisions exist for Short-Term Permits (STPs) that allow manual extraction by local traditional workers such as Hanjis, muleteers, and Khanias. In 2025, the introduction of Customary Sand Mining was presented as a livelihood-centric initiative to empower local youth while discouraging mechanised and unscientific mining. The law also permits limited extraction for personal and agricultural use without formal concessions, acknowledging the practical realities of rural life in Kashmir.
A key legal and policy principle increasingly emphasised is that natural resources should primarily benefit local communities. There has been sustained public and political demand that extraction from local nallahs and riverbeds be prioritised for residents of the area, ensuring that economic benefits remain within local economies. This approach aligns with constitutional values of distributive justice and sustainable development.
Environmental safeguards under the regulated mining regime are well-defined on paper. All legal mining is required to follow approved Scientific Mining Plans and obtain Environmental Clearance. Restrictions on depth and proximity to bridges, embankments, and waterworks are mandatory to protect river systems and groundwater. However, despite provisions mandating GPS-enabled vehicles and e-challans to monitor mineral transportation, these safeguards largely remain on paper. Weak enforcement and limited coordination between departments allow illegally extracted material to enter the market unchecked. Unless these mechanisms are implemented in letter and spirit, the objective of curbing illegal mining will remain difficult to achieve.
Equally important is the restriction on heavy machinery, particularly in ecologically sensitive riverbeds. Manual extraction causes comparatively less environmental damage and sustains traditional labour-based livelihoods. Excessive mechanisation not only accelerates ecological degradation but also displaces local workers, undermining both environmental and social goals of the regulatory framework.
Despite the presence of comprehensive laws, inconsistencies in enforcement continue to affect their effectiveness. Environmental regulations are sometimes implemented unevenly, creating uncertainty and weakening public confidence in regulatory systems. When flood-zone norms are overlooked, mining rules diluted, or local participation left to discretion rather than clear policy, the overall credibility of environmental governance suffers.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a clean and healthy environment forms an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Principles such as the precautionary principle, polluter pays, and sustainable development impose a heightened duty on the State, particularly when it undertakes developmental or extractive activities. Environmental degradation in Kashmir, therefore, is not merely an ecological issue—it is a human rights concern affecting public safety, livelihoods, health, and intergenerational equity.
What Kashmir urgently requires is strict adherence to flood-zone regulations, mandatory inter-departmental clearances for all constructions—including government projects—and transparent implementation of mining laws that clearly recognise and protect local participation. Environmental protection and local livelihoods are not competing interests; when laws are implemented consistently and fairly, they reinforce each other.
Development cannot be allowed to proceed by blocking rivers, destroying wetlands, or weakening natural safeguards. Protecting Kashmir’s environment is not optional—it is a constitutional obligation, a legal necessity, and a moral imperative.
The writer is an Advocate at the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
su*********@***il.com