The Supreme Court has stepped into the regulatory dispute surrounding energy exploration in the northeast by issuing notices to the Union government and the Assam administration over Oil India's plea against the rejection of its drilling proposal under the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park. The state-run energy exploration firm approached the apex court challenging the denial of forest clearance for tapping underground hydrocarbon reserves using advanced Extended Reach Drilling technology. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana took up the petition after senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the public sector undertaking, pressed for an urgent hearing by highlighting the project's critical importance to the country's broader energy requirements.
Surface Protection via Extended Reach Drilling Technique
A central pillar of Oil India's stance before the bench is that the planned extraction does not entail open-cast excavation, conventional mining, or any operational installations inside the demarcated national park boundary. Under the operational design submitted by the company, all drilling rigs, surface equipment, and infrastructure will be located entirely outside the protected perimeter. The company plans to drill vertically to depths ranging between 3,500 and 4,000 metres before navigating horizontally beneath the forested territory to access the deep hydrocarbon reservoirs.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi informed the judges that the geological zone contiguous to the national park is estimated to hold approximately three per cent of India's total hydrocarbon reserves. He argued that the deployment of Extended Reach Drilling technology guarantees that the flora and fauna across the wildlife habitat remain completely undisturbed on the surface. Taking these technical representations into account, the bench noted that it could weigh allowing the project once it evaluates research and development findings alongside comprehensive assessments from statutory authorities, notably the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The matter has been placed for its next hearing after November 17.
The Regulatory Conflict and Judicial Interpretations
The immediate catalyst for the current litigation is the denial of forest clearance for diverting 0.069 hectares of forest land in Assam's Tinsukia district for the proposed drilling venture. Oil India is contesting both the recommendations framed by the Forest Advisory Committee and the formal rejection issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. In its petition, the public sector unit has urged the apex court to quash the ministry's decision dated August 2, 2024, alongside the minutes of the Forest Advisory Committee meeting conducted on July 4, 2024. Furthermore, the company has sought formal statutory approval under Section 2(1)(ii) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, to utilise the designated forest tract.
At the heart of the legal standoff lies the interpretation of the Supreme Court's landmark judgment delivered on April 26, 2023, which imposed a blanket ban on all mining activities within national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and a one-kilometre eco-buffer around their external borders. Oil India argues that this judicial restriction should not encompass hydrocarbon recovery conducted via Extended Reach Drilling, given that the physical entry point and equipment operate beyond sanctuary limits. The company further maintained that oil and gas exploration operates under a completely distinct regulatory regime and cannot be legally equated with open or conventional mineral mining.
Prior Environmental Clearances and Procedural Background
To substantiate its legal position, Oil India placed reliance on prior Supreme Court rulings from 2017, when the court had permitted underground hydrocarbon recovery beneath the Dibru-Saikhowa territory using Extended Reach Drilling, subject to stringent environmental and wildlife protocols. The company also pointed to an earlier recommendation issued by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife. Reference was also made to the Eco-Sensitive Zone notification formally notified for the national park in January 2020, which demarcates a protective buffer extending from zero to 8.7 kilometres across various boundaries of the reserve.
The company noted that it had secured environmental clearance in May 2020 for extension drilling and hydrocarbon testing across seven distinct underground locations beneath the sanctuary, although separate forest clearance remained necessary for components involving forest land. The present petition emerged after an order on September 2, when the Supreme Court allowed Oil India to withdraw an earlier interlocutory application to institute a substantive, fresh petition. During that hearing, Dwivedi had underscored that all pipelines and drilling equipment would stay outside park boundaries, with only subterranean drilling reaching underneath. The Chief Justice permitted the fresh filing on the emergence of a distinct cause of action. The litigation remains anchored within the landmark omnibus environmental case, TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India, instituted in 1995, which continues to guide forest jurisprudence across India.
