The proposed limestone mine in Jaisalmer has brought the Great Indian Bustard back into a difficult policy debate: how can India protect one of its most endangered birds when industrial projects are assessed close to the habitats identified as crucial for its survival? UltraTech Cement Limited’s proposed project has cleared the first step of the environmental approval process, even though the site is reported to be only 5.8 kilometres from a Great Indian Bustard priority area.
The project is not yet an operating mine. The Union environment ministry’s Expert Appraisal Committee recommended the grant of terms of reference during its meeting on September 10. A ToR sets the scope, methodology, reporting requirements and other parameters for the environmental impact assessment process. It is therefore an early procedural milestone, not final environmental clearance.
That distinction matters. The project’s next formal stage is the preparation and appraisal of an environmental impact assessment. Yet the location has already triggered concern because the proposed mining lease extends over more than 400 hectares and includes a stone-crushing unit. The planned limestone production capacity is one million tonnes per annum, while the crusher is proposed to process 1,500 tonnes per hour, according to the EAC meeting minutes cited in the report.
The Great Indian Bustard priority area is described as a designated crucial habitat, including retreats and breeding grounds for the critically endangered bird. A project located close to such an area is consequently not just a question of land conversion or industrial output. It brings habitat protection, dust, noise, transport movement and implementation capacity into the same regulatory frame.
The company has proposed several mitigation measures for the project. These include water sprinkling to suppress dust, bag filters at the stone-crushing site and efforts to minimise disturbance in adjoining areas. On paper, these measures address some of the immediate risks associated with quarrying and crushing. The more difficult question is whether the proposed safeguards can be reliably implemented, monitored and enforced over the life of the project.
That concern is sharpened by the company’s record at another Rajasthan site. At its limestone mining operation covering more than 500 hectares in Jodhpura-Mohanpura village in the Kotputli-Behror district, UltraTech has faced allegations of failing to implement similar measures for environmental protection and public health. In November 2025, the Central Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal held the company responsible for environmental damage and health hazards in the village.
The NGT directed the company to stop blasting operations at night, cover the stone-crushing area with tarpaulin, spray water on approach roads, and install or use bag filters, vacuum suction hoods and dry fogging systems for pollution mitigation. These directions provide a concrete example of the gap that can emerge between safeguards proposed in project documents and safeguards that regulators later find necessary at an operating site.
The Jaisalmer proposal should not automatically be treated as equivalent to the Kotputli-Behror operation. The two sites have different ecological and administrative settings, and the new project remains at the terms-of-reference stage. However, the earlier NGT proceedings make compliance history relevant to the way the new proposal is examined. A mitigation measure has value only if it is designed for local conditions, independently monitored and backed by consequences when it is ignored.
Congress leader and former environment minister Jairam Ramesh criticised the proposal in a post on X. He said the Great Indian Bustard is now “most critically endangered” and needs proactive protection rather than projects that threaten it further. He also recalled that ornithologist Salim Ali had wanted the bird to be declared the national bird in the early 1960s. His intervention is political commentary, but it points to the central tension in the case: whether protection is being treated as a preventive obligation or as a set of mitigation conditions attached to an industrial approval.
The EAC process places the proposed mine within the institutional chain for environmental decision-making. The committee’s recommendation for ToR allows the project to proceed to a more detailed assessment. That assessment is expected to establish the project’s likely impacts and the measures proposed to manage them. The material supplied in the report does not establish whether the project has received final environmental clearance, whether a public hearing has been completed or what the eventual conditions of approval would be.
This is where the administrative significance of the case lies. Environmental regulation is often presented as a sequence of documents, permissions and technical conditions. In practice, the outcome depends on how those conditions connect with local enforcement. Dust suppression requires water, equipment and regular operation. Pollution-control systems require maintenance and inspection. Restrictions on blasting and vehicle movement require monitoring at the site rather than only commitments in an appraisal document.
The proposed project also illustrates why distance alone cannot settle the question of ecological compatibility. The site is reported to be 5.8 kilometres from a priority area, but the available material does not provide the project’s full ecological assessment, maps of habitat use, seasonal movement patterns or the findings of a completed impact study. Those details will be important in determining whether the project’s footprint and associated activity could affect the bird or its habitat.
The available numbers show the scale of the industrial activity under consideration. More than 400 hectares would be covered by the proposed mining project, with annual limestone production of one million tonnes and a crusher capacity of 1,500 tonnes per hour. These are not small, isolated interventions. They imply a sustained chain of excavation, crushing, dust control, vehicle movement and material handling, although the supplied report does not specify the project’s complete transport plan, water requirement, operating hours or workforce.
The contrast with the earlier site is also quantitative. The Kotputli-Behror operation covers more than 500 hectares, placing it in a similar broad land-use category to the proposed Jaisalmer mine. The comparison does not prove that the new project would produce the same impacts. It does show why the company’s ability to implement mitigation measures is a relevant part of the regulatory record rather than a peripheral issue.
For the Great Indian Bustard, the larger policy question is whether priority areas function as meaningful protection zones or merely as reference points in project appraisal. If a project is located close to such an area, the burden on the approval system is not limited to identifying possible harm. It must also establish how risks will be measured, who will monitor compliance, what information will be made public and what action will follow if safeguards fail.
The present record confirms three things. The Jaisalmer proposal is at an early approval stage; it is planned at a substantial mining and crushing scale; and it is located close to a designated Great Indian Bustard priority area. It also shows that proposed safeguards must be considered alongside the company’s compliance record at another Rajasthan mine. What remains uncertain from the supplied material is the outcome of the detailed environmental assessment and whether the project will eventually receive final clearance. Those procedural and enforcement milestones will determine whether the priority-area designation produces stronger protection in practice.
