Why in News: The Centre has decided to proceed with uranium mining in Meghalaya despite local opposition, after issuing an Office Memorandum exempting atomic, critical, and strategic minerals from public consultation, raising concerns over tribal rights and environmental safeguards.
Issues Involved
1. Tribal Rights and Sixth Schedule
- Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council has protective powers.
- OM undermines local self-governance and constitutional safeguards.
2. Erosion of Democratic Process
- Public hearings bypassed → communities reduced to bystanders.
- OMs lack parliamentary scrutiny and judicial review.
3. Environmental and Health Concerns
- Uranium mining is highly polluting, risks irreversible ecological damage.
- Past experience in Jharkhand shows radiation exposure, livelihood loss, and procedural violations.
4. Federalism and Consent
- Sixth and Fifth Schedules protect tribal autonomy.
- Niyamgiri judgment (2013) upheld principle of community consent.
5. Strategic vs. Ethical Concerns
- Government justifies mining for national security and energy needs.
- But development cannot override constitutional protections and global norms of free, prior, informed consent (FPIC).
Way Forward
- Withdraw OM to restore public consultation in mining.
- Respect tribal autonomy under Sixth Schedule; engage in genuine dialogue.
- Explore alternatives: diversify energy sources, study substitutes for uranium.
- Judicial recourse: Courts may test OM’s validity against constitutional and environmental principles.
- Cooperative federalism: Centre must balance security concerns with democratic legitimacy.
UPSC Relevance
GS II: Federalism, Sixth Schedule, Rights of Tribals.
GS III: Environment, Sustainable Development, Energy Security.
Mains Practice Question
Q. Exemption of uranium mining from public consultation raises concerns about tribal rights, environmental justice, and federalism. Critically analyse in light of constitutional safeguards and global norms of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).