November 4, 2026: The Supreme Court today sought responses from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the Assam government on a plea of Oil India seeking to overturn the rejection of its proposal for Extended Reach Drilling linked to hydrocarbon extraction beneath Assam's Dibru-Saikhowa National Park.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana took note of the submissions of Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for Oil India, that the plea was extremely urgent as the PSU was unable to carry out the oil exploration work in the area.

He said the area near the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park is estimated to have three per cent of India’s total hydrocarbon reserves.

Dwivedi said the exploration work would be undertaken through Extended Reach Drilling (ERD) by going below 4,000 metres down the surface and will not cause any harm to flora and fauna of the national park.

The bench said it may permit the exploration work based on the research and development report of the authorities, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

The matter will now be taken up after November 17.

On September two, the bench had permitted Oil India to withdraw an interlocutory application and file a fresh plea seeking to overturn the rejection of its proposal by the Centre for ERD-linked hydrocarbon extraction beneath the national park.

“This is extremely urgent because the area is on the fringes of a national park. All permissions have been granted, but the government considers itself bound by a 2023 order of this court banning mining. This is not mining. The pipeline is being laid outside the park. It goes 4,000 metres underground and then proceeds horizontally,” Dwivedi had said.

He had said the application was filed in a pending case titled TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India of 1995, a landmark piece of litigation that has played a pivotal role in shaping forest conservation and environmental jurisprudence.

Dwivedi had highlighted the urgency of the matter and said the proposed project was crucial to the country's energy requirements.

The CJI said if there was a fresh cause of action, the applicant could file a new petition.

“We wanted to close that entire matter. If there is a fresh cause, file a fresh petition and we will entertain it. The registry cannot list the interlocutory application because there is an order to that effect,” the CJI said.

Dwivedi had requested the bench to permit withdrawal of the interlocutory application with liberty to institute a fresh petition, adding the matter could be taken up either at the beginning or the end of the day's proceedings.

(Source: Verdictum)