Introduction
Mining constitutes a significant component of India’s economy, contributing roughly 2.2–2.5% of national GDP and a markedly larger share—about 10–11%—of the industrial sector’s output. Artisanal and small-scale operations exert a measurable influence on the sector’s cost structure, accounting for approximately 6% of total mineral production costs, while direct employment in mining is reported at roughly 700 persons, indicating a distinct but limited direct labour footprint.
India holds important positions in global mineral markets: it was the largest producer of sheet mica in 2012 and by 2015 ranked fourth worldwide in the production of iron ore, alumina, chromite and bauxite. Some domestic coal and iron‑ore projects contain reserves ranked among the five largest globally. Measured in value terms, the combined metal and mining industry was estimated at about $106.4 billion in 2010.
Read more Government Exam Guru
Although mining in India has deep historical roots and has materially supported national development, the modern sector faces significant governance and sustainability challenges. Recent decades have seen documented human‑rights abuses, environmental pollution and several high‑profile scandals, issues that compound social and ecological risks and complicate efforts to secure equitable, environmentally responsible resource development.
Chapter: Mining in India — Introduction
India’s mining sector rests on an ancient extractive tradition that was progressively systematised during the twentieth century. State-led expansion after independence in 1947, and subsequent liberalising reforms from 1991 together with the 1993 National Mining Policy, integrated Indian mining more closely with contemporary global practices and stimulated modernization across the sector.
Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
The country’s mineral endowment spans metallic and non‑metallic categories. Metallic minerals are conventionally divided into ferrous and non‑ferrous types, while the non‑metallic group includes mineral fuels, gemstones and a variety of industrial minerals. This diversity—some 100 minerals are produced or processed in India—underpins domestic industrial and energy requirements and provides a source of export earnings.
Estimates of the sector’s scale vary by source. One assessment (D.R. Khullar) identifies over 3,100 operational mines nationwide—comprising more than 550 fuel mines, over 560 metal mines and nearly 1,970 non‑metal mines—indicating broad spatial dispersion of extractive activity. Alternative tabulations (S.N. Padhi) describe roughly 600 coal mines, about 35 oil projects and some 6,000 metalliferous mines of assorted sizes, and attribute a daily employment footprint in excess of one million persons, highlighting the sector’s significant labour and multi‑scale operational profile.
Extraction techniques in use reflect resource type: surface (open‑cast) and underground methods predominate for solid minerals, while drilling and pumping technologies are routine for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon recovery. Trade patterns are complementary to domestic production: India exports commodities such as iron ore, titanium, manganese, bauxite and granite, while importing scarce or strategically important inputs including cobalt, mercury and graphite.
Governance of the sector is primarily vested in the Ministry of Mines, which directs national mineral surveying (except where other departments have jurisdiction), regulates resource use, and administers agencies such as the Geological Survey of India and the Indian Bureau of Mines. Strategic energy resources—petroleum, natural gas and atomic minerals—are generally managed outside the Ministry’s remit.
Evidence for systematic mineral extraction on the Indian subcontinent extends from the third millennium BCE into the present, reflecting continuity and changing technologies. Flint procurement and quarrying associated with the Indus (Harappan) cultural sphere are well established: organized exploitation of knappable lithic raw material for tool manufacture was practiced by the 3rd millennium BCE and is archaeologically visible as dedicated quarry and workshop complexes.
Field investigations by P. Biagi and M. Cremaschi (excavations 1985–1986) documented multiple Harappan quarry sites characterized by near‑circular pits, cleared blocks of limestone, and adjacent loci of knapping debris. The workshop assemblages include flakes and blades, elongated blade cores typical of Harappan lithic industries, and distinctive “bullet” cores that produced very narrow bladelets—evidence for specialized reduction strategies. Many quarry pits are infilled with windblown sand sourced from Thar Desert dunes, and concentrations of detached debitage mark the margins of production areas. AMS radiocarbon determinations (conducted 1995–1998) on charcoal (Zizyphus cf. nummularia) from these contexts indicate that quarrying and associated workshop activity continued into the later Harappan period (ca. 1870–1800 BCE).
Later historical and classical Sanskrit literature preserves extensive knowledge of minerals and non‑metallic substances used in technologies and medical formulations—among them bitumen, rock salt, orpiment, chalk, alum, bismuth, calamine, realgar, stibnite, saltpeter, cinnabar, arsenic, sulphur, various ochres, black sand and red clay—attesting to a broad mineral repertoire in material culture. Classical texts also enumerate a suite of metals and metal‑bearing materials, including gold, silver, copper, iron and iron ores, pyrite, tin and brass; mercury appears most frequently in the textual record, yet no indigenous mercury ore deposits have been identified, implying that mercury or its ores were likely acquired through long‑distance exchange.
In the contemporary period India remains a major mineral producer: according to Ministry of Mines estimates (2008) the country ranked third globally in coal production, operating a mix of surface and underground coal mines exemplified in states such as Jharkhand. The historical record of mineral exploitation further includes commodities like manganese (documented in 1951), underscoring the long‑term economic and technological significance of mining in the subcontinent.
Geographical distribution
Read more Government Exam Guru
India’s mineral endowment is spatially uneven, and D.R. Khullar’s widely used classification groups the country into five principal mineral belts—North Eastern Peninsular, Central, Southern, South Western and North Western—each reflecting concentrated assemblages of particular commodities rather than uniform resource distribution.
The North Eastern Peninsular Belt, encompassing the Chota Nagpur and Odisha plateaux across Jharkhand, West Bengal and Odisha, constitutes the country’s most diverse and richest mineral province. It hosts extensive coal and iron ore deposits alongside manganese, mica, bauxite, copper, kyanite, chromite, beryl and apatite. Empirical shares reported for this belt are high (e.g., ~100% of kyanite, ~93% of iron ore, ~84% of coal, ~70% chromite, ~70% mica), with substantial proportions of fire clay, asbestos, china clay, limestone and smaller shares of manganese.
The Central Belt (Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra) is recognized as the second-largest concentration, notable for manganese, bauxite, uranium, limestone, marble, coal, gem minerals, mica and graphite, although its full mineral potential has yet to be comprehensively mapped. The Southern Belt (Karnataka plateau and Tamil Nadu) is dominated by ferrous minerals and bauxite but exhibits lower overall mineral diversity than northern and central provinces. The South Western Belt (Karnataka, Goa) contains focused concentrations of iron ore, garnet and clays. The North Western Belt (Rajasthan, Gujarat), aligned with the Aravali range, is characterized by non‑ferrous and specialty minerals—uranium, mica, beryllium, gem varieties such as aquamarine and emerald—as well as significant gypsum and petroleum occurrences.
Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
Considerable frontier potential remains outside these onshore belts: offshore (marine) basins, mountainous tracts and many inland districts are underexplored. Recent exploration and development attention has focused on previously marginalized inland areas such as Gadchiroli (Maharashtra), where, despite local conflict, mining activity since 2021 has accelerated. Private operators, notably Lloyd’s Metal and Energy Limited (LMEL) operating the Surjagad iron ore mines with mine management by Thriveni Earthmovers, together with entrants like Surjagad Ispat and state-level infrastructure support, are advancing plans that include a 25 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) iron‑ore production objective and the foundations for an integrated steel plant. If realized at scale, these investments are expected to raise domestic steel-making capacity, exert downward pressure on steel costs and reduce reliance on imports.
Newly discovered mines and deposits
Recent exploration by central and state agencies has expanded India’s inventory of critical and precious mineral occurrences across multiple states. Lithium targets now extend beyond earlier known concentrations: the Geological Survey of India (GSI) has reported occurrences in the Salal–Haimana zone of Reasi district (Jammu & Kashmir) and on Renvat Hill and adjacent areas near Degana (Rajasthan), while the National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET) has flagged lithium‑bearing prospects in East Singhbhum and Hazaribagh districts of Jharkhand. The Atomic Minerals Directorate (AMD) has also reported lithium in Karnataka, with a published estimate of about 14,100 tonnes of lithium in a small Mandya patch (Current Science) and preliminary indications from Yadgiri District.
Uranium exploration by AMD has delineated multiple discrete uranium‑oxide occurrences in Sikar district, Rajasthan, with quantified tonnages reported for specific deposits (Rohil: 8,813 t; Rohil West: 1,086 t; Jahaz: 3,570 t; Geratiyon ki Dhani: 1,002 t), indicating measurable near‑surface resources in that area.
Investigations into rare‑earth element (REE) mineralization have identified both light‑REE and heavy‑mineral contexts. The National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI) documented a complex assemblage of light‑REE minerals and associated phases (including allanite, cerite, thorite, columbite, tantalite, apatite, zircon, monazite, pyrochlore, euxenite and fluorite) in Ananthapur district, Andhra Pradesh. Separately, the Department of Atomic Energy reports promising REE occurrences in southwestern Rajasthan—bastnäsite, britolite, synchysite and xenotime hosted in carbonate and microgranite lithologies; microgranite at Siwana (Jalore) carries an uncommon “Genotime” REE signature, and a combined potential resource on the order of 5 million tonnes of REE is suggested for localities including Kamthai (Barmer), the Dhani granite block near Pali, and carbonate horizons at Nivaniya near Udaipur.
Coastal and fluvial heavy‑mineral studies by GSI have noted vanadiferous titanomagnetite in sediments from Alang beach and the Gulf of Khambhat. Provenance analysis proposes derivation from Deccan basalt sources with fluvial dispersal via the Narmada and Tapi systems; this interpretation is supported by 69 sediment samples collected from the Gulf. Tantalum mineralization has been reported in riverine/placer contexts of the Sutlej in the Ropar (Rupnagar) region by researchers at IIT Ropar.
Gold occurrences continue to be recorded across several states: Sonbhadra (Uttar Pradesh) by state geological surveys; multiple localities in Keonjhar, Mayurbhanj and Deogarh districts (Odisha) reported by the Directorate of Mines and GSI; and Jamui district (Bihar) noted by GSI. In Andhra Pradesh, private‑sector development is advancing at Jonnagiri (Geomysore Services India Limited, with Deccan Gold Mines Ltd holding a 40% stake), where first commercial gold production was projected for October–November 2024.
Collectively, these discoveries—documented by GSI, NMET, AMD, NGRI, the Department of Atomic Energy, academic institutions and state surveys—demonstrate a widening spatial and lithological distribution of critical minerals (lithium, REEs, uranium, vanadium, tantalum) and gold in India, highlighting new targets for resource evaluation and potential exploitation.
Minerals
Read more Government Exam Guru
Nearly half of India’s land (approximately 48.8%) is classified as arable, a land‑use constraint that interacts with mineral development by concentrating population and infrastructure in areas that may compete with extractive activity. Despite this, India possesses a broad and economically important mineral endowment that supports primary industries and export markets.
India holds substantial fossil‑fuel and metallurgical resources. It ranks among the world’s leading coal holders and, by 2008 Ministry of Mines estimates, had raised coal and lignite production to third place globally, reflecting both large reserves and intensive extraction. The country also contains important deposits of petroleum, natural gas and limestone that underpin domestic energy and construction sectors.
The metallic and industrial mineral base is diversified and strategically significant for manufacturing and international trade. According to 2008 Ministry of Mines data, India was second in world chromite production—critical for stainless steel and alloy manufacture—and second in barite production, a key input for drilling fluids and other industrial uses. India ranked fourth in iron‑ore production that year and is a major exporter of ore (notably to Japan, Korea, Europe and the Middle East, with Japan historically receiving the largest share). Bauxite and crude steel production placed India fifth globally (2008), and aluminium output ranked eighth, reflecting the linkage from domestic bauxite resources through smelting to non‑ferrous metal production. India is also a leading producer and exporter of manganese ore (ranked seventh in 2008), supplying markets in Japan and several European countries.
Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
Beyond bulk metals, India controls globally important niche resources. It holds roughly 12% of the world’s known economically extractable thorium, a radioactive element with potential significance for future nuclear fuel strategies. India is the dominant global producer and exporter of mica—accounting for nearly 60% of net world production—with major markets in the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States. Together, these mineral assets underpin key domestic industries (steel, aluminium, drilling and electronics) and sustain export earnings, while land‑use pressures and strategic considerations shape how resources are developed.
Production (India, calendar year 2015)
The Ministry of Mines’ 2015 national production dataset (Production of Selected Minerals) records quantities across three categories—Fuel, Metallic, and Non‑metallic minerals—using a variety of measurement units. The table comprises three fuel entries, seven metallic minerals and four non‑metallic entries, providing a cross‑section of India’s mineral output in that year.
Fuel production is dominated by solid and gaseous energy carriers: coal and lignite at 683 Million tonnes, natural gas at 32,249 Million cubic metres, and crude oil at 36.9 Million tonnes. These figures represent the principal indigenous energy resources reported in the dataset and are given in both mass and volumetric units.
Metallic mineral outputs vary widely in scale. Large bulk metal production includes iron ore at 156 Million tonnes and bauxite at 28.134 million tonnes, while intermediate volumes include copper at 3.9 Million tonnes. Several base metals are reported in thousand‑tonne units (manganese ore 2,148 Thousand tonnes; zinc 759 Thousand tonnes; lead 145 Thousand tonnes). Gold is recorded as 1,594 kilograms, illustrating the small physical mass but high economic value typical of precious metals.
Non‑metallic minerals span both gemstone counts and bulk industrial materials. Limestone is reported at 170 Million tonnes and gypsum at 3,651 Thousand tonnes; phosphorite appears at 1,383 Thousand tonnes. Diamond production is presented as 31,836,091 carats, a high numerical count in a non‑mass unit that contrasts with the tonne‑scale reporting of many industrial minerals.
Two features of the dataset are notable for interpreting resource geography. First, bulk commodities (notably coal and lignite, limestone and iron ore) dominate mass‑based extraction, reflecting demand for energy and industrial raw materials. Second, the presence of small‑mass, high‑value outputs (gold in kilograms; diamonds in carats) highlights a complementary pattern of gemstone and precious‑metal production. Finally, unit heterogeneity—million tonnes, thousand tonnes, cubic metres, kilograms and carats—requires careful unit conversion and contextual interpretation before making direct magnitude comparisons or deriving policy conclusions.
Exports of ores and minerals in 2004–05 (as reported in Exports of Ores and Minerals, Ministry of Mines, Government of India) are reported by mass (tonnes) and cover 14 commodity categories with a combined export volume of 3,522,269 tonnes. The distribution is strongly skewed toward a few bulk industrial minerals: bauxite (1,131,472 t) and alumina (896,518 t) together accounted for approximately 57.6% of the total (≈32.13% and ≈25.44% respectively). Secondary contributors by tonnage were limestone (343,814 t, ≈9.76%), manganese ore (317,787 t, ≈9.02%) and marble (234,455 t, ≈6.66%), followed by zinc (180,704 t, ≈5.13%).
A mid cohort of commodities—gypsum & plaster (103,003 t, ≈2.92%), mica (97,842 t, ≈2.78%), iron ore (83,165 t, ≈2.36%) and lead (81,157 t, ≈2.31%)—made modest contributions, while natural gas (29,523 t, ≈0.84%), copper (18,990 t, ≈0.54%), sulfur (2,465 t, ≈0.07%) and coal (1,374 t, ≈0.04%) were minor by mass. The pattern indicates that in 2004–05 India’s mineral export profile was dominated by non‑ferrous and industrial minerals rather than energy minerals by weight.
Read more Government Exam Guru
Named mining features such as the mine shaft at Kolar Gold Fields exemplify the spatially specific infrastructure underpinning mineral production; however, the export data summarized here are aggregated by commodity and reflect national bulk flows rather than individual sites.
Legal and constitutional framework
Although India is not a signatory to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), its mineral sector is governed by a comprehensive national legal and constitutional architecture combining policy guidance, central statute and state-level implementation. Policy direction is provided by the National Mineral Policy (most recently 2008), which builds on earlier instruments—most notably the post‑1991 National Mineral Policy of 1993 that formally opened the sector to private participation and foreign investment following economic liberalization.
Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
The principal national statute remains the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act 1957). Under the constitutional distribution of powers the regulation and development of minerals is placed in the State List (Entry 23, VII Schedule), giving states primary responsibility for mineral matters; however, Parliament retains concurrent competence under the Central List (Entry 54) so that central legislation such as the MMDR Act can bind states to the extent of its enactments. In practice state governments are treated as owners of subsoil mineral resources and exercise ownership functions by granting mineral concessions and collecting receipts (royalty, dead rent, fees). These revenues are credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State and are expendable only through the state budgetary process.
The statutory and administrative framework has evolved over decades. The MMDR Act, enacted alongside the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1957, originally reflected a public‑sector‑dominated mineral economy. Subsequent statutory amendments (1972, 1986, 1994 and 1999) progressively adjusted the concession regime and administrative powers in response to changing policy objectives. The 1999 amendment introduced several substantive reforms—differentiating reconnaissance from prospecting, delegating limestone concession‑granting powers to states, allowing non‑compact/non‑contiguous leases, liberalizing area limits for licences and leases, and empowering states to frame rules to combat illegal mining.
A significant legal and policy shift occurred with the MMDR (Amendment) Act, 2015, which sought to curtail discretionary decision‑making and enhance transparency by mandating that mineral concessions be awarded only through competitive bidding, applicable at the prospecting or mining stage as appropriate. Complementary subordinate legislation—the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 and the Minerals (Evidence of Mineral Contents) Rules, 2015—was notified to provide procedural and technical parameters for the auction‑based concession mechanism.
Finally, recent judicial pronouncements have introduced contested propositions concerning mineral ownership: the Supreme Court has observed that mineral ownership should vest in the surface owner rather than the government, a development with important implications for property rights and state leasing regimes. Overall, India’s legal framework reflects a balance between central regulatory standards, state control of mineral property and a progressively market‑oriented, transparency‑focused concession system.
Issues with mining
India’s mineral sector is characterized by incomplete geological knowledge and a highly uneven spatial distribution of known deposits, leaving substantial tracts unexplored and producing marked regional disparities in resource availability. This heterogeneity complicates strategic planning for exploration and extraction, the provision of transport and processing infrastructure, and balanced regional economic development. In response to supply-side constraints and industry needs, policy measures have sought both to liberalize the sector and to introduce technological and institutional reforms: the National Mineral Policy of 1993 aimed to attract private investment and modern technologies, but a mid-term review of the Tenth Five‑Year Plan identified procedural delays in concession processing and inadequate local infrastructure as major obstacles. A High Level Committee (constituted 2005) produced recommendations in 2006 that informed the replacement of the 1993 policy with a revised National Mineral Policy in 2008, explicitly intended to improve exploration, the investment climate and administrative efficiency.
Parallel to governance reforms, efforts to increase circularity—notably promoting the recycling of scrap iron in the ferrous sector along models from England, Japan and Italy—reflect attempts to integrate secondary raw materials and reduce primary-extraction pressure. Safety and labour issues have long been salient: regulatory initiatives dating to an expert committee in 1894 culminated in the Mines Act of 1901 and a subsequent decline in accident rates, yet mining incidents continue to result from both natural events and human factors. Principal proximate causes of fatal or serious accidents include roof falls, methane and coal-dust explosions, carbon-monoxide poisoning, vehicular collisions, slips/falls and haulage-related failures.
Since the late twentieth century the sector has also generated pronounced socio-environmental problems. Large-scale displacement of local communities and associated resistance have been extensively reported, alongside documented human-rights abuses including forms of indentured and forced labour. Environmental impacts—pollution, deforestation, harm to wildlife habitats—and governance deficits such as corruption further compound the social and ecological costs of mining, underlining persistent tensions between resource development, worker safety, and community and environmental protection.
Sand mining
Read more Government Exam Guru
Sand extraction in India has emerged as a significant environmental and governance challenge, with intensive attention paid to states such as Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Goa. Advocacy groups and public-awareness campaigns in these regions have emphasized the ecological consequences of unregulated and illegal extraction, drawing links between sand mining and habitat loss, degradation of coastal and riverine systems, and broader failures in sustainable resource management. These campaigns frame illicit sand removal not only as an environmental threat but also as a symptom of weak regulatory oversight and competing developmental pressures.
Legal and policy responses have ranged from litigation to international advocacy. In western India, the Konkan coast became the subject of public interest litigation brought by the Awaaz Foundation in the Bombay High Court, which sought restrictions on coastal mining to address large-scale extraction impacts. At the international level, Awaaz Foundation and the Bombay Natural History Society elevated sand mining to the biodiversity agenda by highlighting it as a major threat to coastal ecosystems at the Conference of Parties 11 to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Hyderabad, October 2012). The fraught politics of enforcement are illustrated by the case of D. K. Ravi, an Indian Administrative Service officer noted for aggressive action against illegal sand mining in Karnataka’s Kolar district; his death in March 2015 prompted widespread allegations that opposition from organized criminal interests tied to land grabbing and illicit extraction played a role, underscoring the intersection of environmental regulation, local power structures, and rule-of-law challenges.
Background
Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
Mining has been a visible, if modest, component of India’s industrial economy, accounting for roughly 3% of GDP in the 1990s and falling to about 2% in the more recent period, signifying a relative contraction of the sector’s share of national output. Despite this overall decline, regionally concentrated mineral reserves have underpinned significant extractive activity and export orientation.
The state of Goa exemplifies this pattern: with estimated iron‑ore reserves on the order of 1,000 million tonnes, it developed into a regionally important mining district. Prior to the export surge of the 2000s, Goa was exporting on the order of 30 million tonnes of iron ore per year. From the early 21st century, rapidly rising Chinese demand for iron ore reshaped international flows, linking Goa’s production closely to global markets. Concurrent changes in India’s domestic environment—most notably a relaxation of state controls over iron‑ore trade and the growing use of spot contracts—amplified this effect, and exports roughly doubled between 2005 and 2010.
Governance of mineral extraction in India has long rested on statutory regulation. A parliamentary Act passed in 1987 established legal conditions for mining tenure and conduct; a central element of that framework was a requirement that mining operations hold government leases, limited in duration to a maximum of 20 years, as a precondition for lawful extraction. This tenure provision tied legal authorization directly to operational legitimacy and formed the statutory basis against which subsequent policy and market changes played out.
The Companies Act (2013) institutionalized corporate social responsibility in India by obliging firms to allocate 2% of net profits to social programs, thereby encouraging companies to pursue social initiatives through dedicated mechanisms rather than by integrating them into core commercial operations. This regulatory shift reinforced a model in which social interventions are often implemented via separate philanthropic vehicles, a configuration that favors project-based, discrete interventions over embedded, long-term business–community partnerships.
The Mineral Foundation of Goa (MFG), a non‑profit established on 12 December 2000 by a consortium of 16 mine operators, exemplifies such a vehicle in the mining sector. MFG’s portfolio combined ecological restoration, healthcare, and educational support for communities adjacent to mining activities. Between 2000 and 2010 the foundation committed a measurable financial effort—approximately Rs. 10 crores—to environmental sustainability projects, and produced concrete outputs such as constructed ponds and donations of books and school equipment.
Notwithstanding these inputs and outputs, MFG’s approach revealed two recurrent limitations. First, the foundation generally avoided financing the ongoing maintenance of assets it created, undermining the durability and long‑term utility of its interventions. Second, a persistent mismatch in stakeholder priorities emerged: local farmers showed a clear preference for direct monetary transfers, while mining companies and their agents tended to supply technical assistance and in‑kind support. Together, these dynamics curtailed the capacity of foundation-led CSR to deliver sustained, locally aligned benefits in mining‑adjacent communities.
The Ban
A 2010 on‑site review by the Shah Commission uncovered pervasive regulatory and operational failures in Goa’s iron‑ore sector, documenting continuance of extraction after lease expiry, mining beyond approved spatial boundaries, and neglect of mandated buffer distances between overburden dumps and irrigation canals. These breaches produced measurable environmental and management effects: sedimentation and contamination risks to irrigation infrastructure, direct threats to agricultural hydrology and local water security, and aggregate production exceeding legally permitted output by over 15 percent—signaling accelerated resource depletion, loss of fiscal and regulatory control, and potential distortions in domestic and export markets.
In response to these findings, the state government ordered the closure of all 90 iron‑ore mines in Goa, and the Supreme Court subsequently imposed a temporary nationwide suspension of mining operations in the state. This sequence—commission review, administrative shutdown, and judicial ban—underscores geographic dimensions of the case: the consequences of weak spatial governance and inadequate land‑use enforcement; the environmental vulnerability of adjacent agricultural and water systems to mining waste; and the ability of administrative and judicial institutions to rapidly reconfigure regional resource use, labour markets, and the spatial organization of extractive activities.
Read more Government Exam Guru
Results and Conclusion
The government-imposed suspension of mining activity produced a pronounced economic shock, reducing state revenue by as much as Rs. 50,000 crores (approximately USD 8 billion) and contributing to negative impacts on India’s GDP in 2013–2014. The interruption of operations also precipitated extensive social dislocation: large numbers of mine workers lost employment, and many displaced individuals were unwilling or unable to revert to former subsistence livelihoods such as fishing and farming, prolonging community-level instability.
The case highlights a structural misalignment between firms’ commercial imperatives and their corporate social responsibility (CSR) commitments. Even where companies and civic actors (notably groups referenced as MFG in the Goa context) implemented social programs, most firms remained predominantly profit-driven, and CSR interventions proved insufficient to secure uninterrupted or legitimate operations in the face of legal and market pressures. Weak public governance—manifest in incomplete documentation and inadequate supervision—created regulatory lacunae that encouraged opportunistic behavior by operators and increased the incidence of risk-taking, including illegal practices.
Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
Environmental outcomes were heterogeneous: some remediation and monitoring produced localized improvements in water quality, yet measurements at times recorded unacceptable concentrations of iron ore, indicating that partial remediation and social-action measures did not eliminate pollution. Collectively, the evidence suggests that regulatory weakness and the disconnect between private profit motives and broader social–environmental responsibilities undermined both socioeconomic resilience and environmental protection in the mining sector, pointing to the need for more robust governance and mechanisms to align corporate incentives with long-term public interests.