Illegal riverbed mining

Explanation

Pair 1 is correctly matched: Under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010, the NGT has original jurisdiction over 'substantial questions relating to the environment,' which includes the power to take cognisance of matters such as canal encroachment or river floodplain degradation and to issue notices to statutory bodies like Pollution Control Boards, municipal commissioners, and district magistrates as part of this jurisdiction. Pair 2 is incorrectly matched: When the NGT directs authorities to comply with a national framework (such as the National Framework for Sedimentation Management issued by the Ministry of Jal Shakti), this falls under its original and remedial powers — not its appellate jurisdiction. Section 16 of the NGT Act confers appellate jurisdiction over orders, decisions, or directions made by authorities under specified environmental laws (such as the Environment Protection Act, Forest Conservation Act, etc.). Directing compliance with a Ministry's framework is an exercise of original/remedial jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction under Section 16. Pair 3 is correctly matched: Section 15 of the NGT Act empowers the Tribunal to provide relief and compensation, restitution of damaged property, and restitution of the environment. Supervising desilting operations to prevent illegal sand mining — ensuring works are confined to identified sites, in conformity with approved project reports, and preventing irreversible environmental degradation — squarely falls within the Tribunal's remedial and enforcement role under Section 15.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. District Survey Reports are mandated preparatory documents that map minor mineral resources, demand, and environmental sensitivity in a district. The Supreme Court and the NGT have consistently held that DSRs must be in place before any earth-mining lease or clearance is granted, and they form the foundation on which SEIAA evaluates environmental clearance applications for minor minerals including riverbed material. Statement 2 is correct. Under the EIA Notification, 2006 (issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986), projects are categorised as Category A (central clearance from MoEF&CC) or Category B (state-level clearance from SEIAA). Sand and earth mining from riverbeds typically falls under Category B, making SEIAA the competent authority for environmental clearance — not the central Ministry. Statement 3 is incorrect. State Pollution Control Boards are constituted under Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — not the Air Act, 1981. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 merely extended the mandate of already-existing SPCBs to cover air pollution; it did not create them. The consent-to-establish and consent-to-operate powers of SPCBs flow from the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981 together, but the institutional origin is the Water Act.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct: the Central Empowered Committee was originally formed in 2002 on the Supreme Court's order, and has since been given statutory status (in 2023). Its origins lie in judicial direction, not executive legislation. Statement 2 is correct: unscientific or excessive extraction of sand from active river channels and floodplains disrupts the dynamic balance of river systems, with documented impacts including groundwater depletion, loss of aquifers, destruction of aquatic and riparian habitats, and alteration of river morphology and hydrology. Statement 3 is incorrect: the CEC is not an enforcement arm of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, nor does it possess direct prosecutorial powers against illegal miners. It is a Supreme Court-appointed (and now statutory) advisory and oversight committee that submits reports and recommendations to the Supreme Court — enforcement action follows through the court's orders and state governments, not through the CEC acting as a prosecutorial body.