Early in February this year, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) handed down a strongly worded order that put some of India’s top cement companies from the Adani, Aditya Birla, and Tata groups on the spot. It also brought under legal scrutiny a type of wrongdoing that is rarely investigated: the promotion of illegal limestone mining by companies that deliberately source the mineral from mines that violate laws and harm the environment.

“...the issue of environment has to be considered by this tribunal in totality. Therefore, whether they are deliberately purchasing the limestone, which is said to be illegally mined...and thereby promoting the limestone mined has to be assessed after full evidence extended by the parties concerned before us,” said a two-member bench of the NGT led by Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh in its order handed down on February 6, 2026. It directed all companies involved in the case to “disclose the source of their purchase of limestone, by filing their affidavits, before the next date.”

The tribunal’s order was delivered in response to an Intervention Application filed by Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Limited (GHCL), a soda ash manufacturing company that is part of the Dalmia Group. In its application, the company had sought to be removed from a case filed by Sayyed Mohammed Shabir Usman and Modhvadia Dilipbhai Bhurabhai, both residents of Gujarat, who alleged that 11 cement and chemical production companies were promoting illegal limestone mining by buying the mineral from mines that violated the law and harmed the environment in ecologically sensitive areas of the coastal State. GHCL has also been named in their application.

The soda ash maker did not just fail to convince the tribunal that it did not need to respond to the allegations; it was ordered by the two-member bench to disclose the source of the limestone it uses in its production process. In the February order, the tribunal mentioned that the request to disclose sources of limestone procurement by the companies involved in the case, specifically those that manufacture cement, was made by the lawyer for the applicant. This request (prayer, in legal parlance) was found to be “genuine/appropriate” by the bench.

The tribunal’s order has revived issues that have been far from the public spotlight in recent years. Allegations of illegal mining against limestone miners and environmental pollution against cement and soda ash manufacturers in coastal districts of Gujarat gathered significant public and media attention some years ago.

In recent years, however, these two issues appear to have slipped out of public view despite involving the business interests of prominent corporations and the prevalence of unresolved environmental concerns in an ecologically unique region of western India—Saurashtra.

A unique biodiversity of global renown

The coastal districts in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat are rich in biodiversity as well as mineral reserves, which is why they are always on the radars of both corporations and conservationists.

The Gir Somnath, Amreli, and Junagadh districts, for example, are globally recognised as part of a region that is the sole habitat of Asiatic lions. Multiple protected areas in and around these districts have been earmarked for the conservation of the lions and the wider biodiversity of Saurashtra. These include dry deciduous teak forests, dry deciduous scrub forests, and dry savannah forests, according to a draft notification dated October 25, 2016, prepared by the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change for notifying an Eco Sensitive Zone in the region. The best-known protected area in the region is the Gir National Park.

In addition to this rich biodiversity, the region also has plentiful reserves of limestone and sand, particularly in the Junagadh district, according to surveys carried out by Gujarat government geologists and local residents who filed applications in the green tribunal about illegal mining. The limestone reserves attract not only mining companies but also cement and chemical firms that use the mineral as a key ingredient in their production processes. All such companies have production facilities in the coastal districts of Saurashtra, including but not limited to Gir Somnath and Junagadh.

Why limestone mines in coastal Gujarat became controversial

In July 2018, the Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee, a local civil society group, filed an application in the Western Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). It raised “substantial questions related to environment arising out of large-scale, illegal and unauthorised mining of limestone in districts Gir Somnath and Junagadh in Gujarat without any prior Environmental Clearance from the Gujarat State Level Impact Assessment Authority.”

This limestone, the civil society group’s application said, was being “sold illegally to cement plants in the same districts, i.e., for industrial purposes.” The group named 14 mines that, it alleged, had violated the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, by mining limestone without prior Environment Clearance. Among the 14 were mines operated by local residents, as well as two operated by GHCL Limited. The application also criticised various departments and arms of the Gujarat government, calling them “a mute spectator to illegal mining”.

Four years later, in November 2022, the tribunal handed down a judgment in which it upheld one contention of the civil society group. “The position of law makes it clear that since March 2016, it was mandatory for all such mining leases (major or minor), irrespective of the size, whether less than 5 hectares or bigger than that, that EC would be required for all. However, in the present case, it is apparent that none of the respondents...had obtained a valid EC,” a two-member bench led by Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh wrote in its judgment on November 14.

The bench did not pass any observation or decision about the allegation that cement and chemical manufacturing plants were buying illegally mined limestone for their production. The civil society group had neither described the issue at length in its application nor made the cement and chemical companies respondents in the case.

Why limestone supply chains attracted criticism and scrutiny

Another application, filed in November 2019 by Sayyed Mohammed Shabir Usman and Modhvadia Dilipbhai Bhurabhai, both local residents, sought to fill this gap. It requested action against the cement and chemical companies in the region for “promotion of such illegal mining” done by limestone mines operating without Environment Clearances and, therefore, in violation of the law and harming the environment in ecologically sensitive areas.

The application accused 40 mines of violating the EIA Notification and 11 cement and chemical manufacturing companies of encouraging illegal mining by purchasing illegally mined limestone from those mines for use in their production processes. Of the 40 mines, 14 had already been investigated and penalised in the 2018 case, so they were excused. But the tribunal found prima facie merit in the application filed by Usman and Bhurabhai. It ordered a committee of experts working in Gujarat to investigate the remaining 26 mines, which are spread across multiple districts.

In early November 2023, the committee conducted field visits across five districts in which the mines are located: Porbandar, Rajkot, Gir Somnath, Jamnagar, and Devbhumi Dwarka. The experts calculated amounts that the mines would have to pay as Environmental Compensation for mining without Environmental Clearances. In its report on the field investigation, filed in December 2023, the committee wrote: “Since there is no blasting or large-scale mechanisation requirement, there is no significant pollution potential from these mines, except dust generation from mineral transport activities.” It also conducted an assessment of the damage cost, in monetary terms, that could be imposed on those who operated the mines for harming the environment.

The tribunal is yet to deliver its verdict on the committee’s findings and recommendations. What adds a layer of complexity to its task is the additional allegation that cement and chemical manufacturers encouraged illegal mining by sourcing limestone from mines that operated without Environment Clearances.

How cement and chemical companies responded to the accusations

The 11 cement and chemical manufacturing companies accused of encouraging illegal limestone mining have maintained a uniform stand since the beginning: as per applicable laws, they carry no responsibility for the actions of the mines from which they purchase limestone, so they should be deleted as respondents in the case. The tribunal has, thus far, refused to accept this reasoning and, consequently, did not grant their requests.

This reporter reviewed previously undisclosed documents about the limestone procurement practices of specific plants operated by cement companies in the Adani, Aditya Birla, and Tata conglomerates. These three are among the 11 cement and chemical manufacturing plants accused of promoting illegal limestone mining by the applicants in the green tribunal. All the plants are located in several districts of coastal Gujarat. The other seven plants are owned by locally well-known and large-scale conglomerates.

The documents reveal noteworthy details about the companies’ limestone procurement practices.

Consider the case of Ambuja Cements, one of India’s largest cement companies, which has a cement production plant in the Gir Somnath district. It was taken over by the Adani Group in September 2022. According to a company affidavit drafted in January 2023, it has “five running captive mining leases with an area of 2,070 Ha and annual capacity of limestone is 9.29 million tonnes and is operating lawfully with a valid EC, CTO, and CTE.”

The same affidavit also acknowledges that the company purchased limestone from M/s Dhirajlal Panchabhai Vachhani in 2017 (1,11,610 tonnes) and 2018 (46,597 tonnes). This is one of the 40 mines accused of operating without a valid Environment Clearance and, therefore, in violation of the law. But Ambuja Cements countered this: “M/s Dhirajlal Panchabhai Vachhani had a valid CCA vide AWH-65777, Dt.27.10.2014 and was valid till 18.12.2018.” The company argued that the mine was “operating lawfully on the dates they were supplying limestone” to it.

Less than two months before this affidavit was drafted by Ambuja Cements, the green tribunal, in its judgment in the 2018 case, listed M/s Dhirajlal Panchabhai Vachhani among 14 mines that operated without Environment Clearance and were therefore liable to pay “environmental compensation” to the pollution control board. The miners appealed this judgment in the Supreme Court and received an interim stay on it. The case remains pending.

The affidavit drafted by UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group company, in August 2023 is similarly telling. It acknowledged that, “for the purpose of manufacturing cement”, it “used to purchase limestone from some” of the 40 miners being investigated. The cement company explained that it “was a bona fide purchaser of the limestone and it was neither obliged to nor was in a position to ascertain whether the limestone purchased from the traders was mined with EC or without EC.”

It cited provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, and its own contract with the miners to disown any responsibility for their violations. Unlike Ambuja Cements, UltraTech Cement did not provide details of the actual miners who supplied limestone to the company.

The affidavit drafted in April 2023 by Tata Chemicals Limited, a company in the Tata Group that manufactures soda ash and cement, is even less forthcoming than UltraTech about the sources of its limestone supply. The company termed all allegations against it “false, baseless and fanciful”. It also said that, to the best of its knowledge, the company’s “mineral supply chain is free from illegal and unauthorised mining activities and is equipped with environmental and social safeguards.”

At the time of writing, not a single one of the 11 cement and chemical companies had complied with the NGT’s February order asking them to disclose the sources of their limestone supply in the past and present.

Akshay Deshmane is an independent journalist based in New Delhi.

Also Read | Turmoil at Adani Group a key test for India Inc under Narendra Modi

Also Read | Hindenburg expose of Adani group an opportunity for opposition to unite