NGT indicates local officials, sand mafia may be working together in Madhya Pradesh

The National Green Tribunal’s joint committee investigated alleged illegal sand mining in Bhind and Datia districts. It found that the state task force existed but was not functioning effectively at ground level. The findings matter because the Supreme Court had already warned Madhya Pradesh about stringent action if illegal mining continued.

The committee documented eight sand storage yards in Matiyawali village, Bhind, and three in Rohera village, Datia. Their estimated combined stock was 6,010 cubic metres. It also found alleged excavation near a bridge in a restricted zone, vehicles without visible or registered number plates, and no check-posts at inspected locations.

The report raised concerns about selective enforcement. Officials had acted against smaller stockpiles but not larger ones with similar effectiveness. The committee called for immediate inquiry, responsibility-fixing, and regular surveillance involving departments, local bodies, police and the district collector.

The National Green Tribunal, or NGT, is India’s specialised environmental tribunal. It hears disputes involving environmental protection, natural resources and related legal duties. Its purpose is to provide focused and faster decisions on environmental matters than ordinary courts may provide. This explanation uses established knowledge beyond the article.

In the Sindh River matter, the NGT’s Central Zone Bench ordered a joint committee to investigate allegations against the Madhya Pradesh government. Representatives came from the Central Pollution Control Board, MPSEIAA and MPPCB. They inspected storage yards and mining locations, checked official records, and reported their findings to the tribunal.

The NGT can consider the evidence, require explanations from authorities, and order monitoring or remedial steps where environmental rules are breached. Here, the committee proposed regular surveillance, monthly action-taken reports, and an inquiry into unequal enforcement. The tribunal’s process therefore turns complaints into documented findings and possible accountability.

The committee documented questionable sand storage in both districts. It identified eight yards in Matiyawali village, Bhind, and three yards in Rohera village, Datia. Together, the estimated stock measured 6,010 cubic metres. The committee’s figures describe stored sand, while the reported excavation findings identify locations rather than a measured excavation volume.

Datia accounted for 3,800 cubic metres across three locations. Bhind accounted for 2,210 cubic metres across eight locations. In Bhind, the largest stockpile was estimated at 1,000 cubic metres at survey number 208. Other stockpiles included 360 cubic metres across three survey numbers and two locations holding 300 cubic metres each.

In Datia, the committee also observed patches of alleged illegal excavation near a bridge at Rohera. The area fell within a restricted zone under the 2020 sand-mining guidelines. The report recorded action against the yards and seizure of one tractor-loader, but did not quantify excavated sand.

Selective enforcement is troubling because officials are expected to apply rules consistently. If smaller stockpiles are targeted while larger ones remain untouched, the difference cannot be explained simply by enforcement activity alone. It may indicate neglect, weak supervision, or cooperation between officials and operators. The committee described this as possible connivance and dereliction of duty.

The report gives a concrete example from Bhind. Officials initiated action against all eight identified yards, but the committee still raised concern that smaller stockpiles appeared to face action while larger ones did not receive similarly effective treatment. The largest recorded stockpile was about 1,000 cubic metres at survey number 208.

This finding does not itself prove corruption. It creates a reason for an immediate inquiry into what officials knew, when they acted, and why enforcement differed. The committee recommended fixing responsibility wherever dereliction is established, including within mining and police departments.

Excavation near a bridge is especially serious because removing material from the riverbed can alter conditions around a structure. It may affect the ground supporting approaches, foundations or nearby banks. A restricted zone exists to keep mining away from locations considered especially sensitive under applicable guidelines. The article identifies the location as restricted under the 2020 enforcement and monitoring guidelines.

At Rohera village in Datia, the committee observed patches of alleged illegal excavation in the Sindh River near a bridge. It said the site fell within a restricted zone. This was not merely a storage violation. It involved alleged digging at a location where mining controls were meant to prevent added risk.

The committee’s finding supports closer inspection and responsibility-fixing. It recommended regular surveillance involving district authorities, police, mining officials and local bodies. Monthly action-taken reports through the district collector could help show whether excavation stops and whether bridge-adjacent areas remain protected.

Illegal removal from a live river channel can change the channel’s depth, flow and banks. Heavy machinery and suction dredges can extract large quantities quickly, making damage harder to detect or reverse. Possible consequences include unstable riverbanks, unsafe bridge surroundings, disturbed wildlife habitat and reduced security for communities that depend on the river. These are established environmental risks beyond the article’s detailed findings.

The application before the NGT alleged mechanised mining across 18 villages in Bhind and six in Datia. It described heavy earth-moving machinery and boats fitted with suction-dredging equipment operating in the live channel. It also alleged transport into Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, often without valid transit permits.

The committee confirmed alleged excavation near a restricted bridge zone in Datia, but did not quantify wider environmental damage. That makes monitoring important. Surveillance, check-posts, permits, inspections and action against equipment can help detect extraction and limit risks before river structures and communities face greater harm.

River sand is a natural resource, but removing it without controls can disturb river channels, banks and nearby structures. Regulation helps decide where mining may occur, how it should be conducted and whether environmental safeguards are in place. Mining plans describe approved operations, while environmental clearances assess whether proposed activity can proceed under environmental conditions. These safeguards are important because the article describes sensitive ecologies and alleged mechanised mining.

The article reports that Datia had 30 sand mines allotted through e-auction. Of these, 26 had approved mining plans and environmental clearances. It also records 17 illegal-excavation cases, 87 illegal-transportation cases and four illegal-storage cases during 2025-26. These figures show why approval and enforcement must work together.

Plans and clearances cannot prevent over-extraction unless authorities monitor actual activity. Check-posts, vehicle identification, inspections, surveillance and action-taken reports provide that connection. The committee proposed a multi-agency surveillance committee and monthly reports through the district collector to strengthen oversight.