Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh on Saturday raised concerns over an Adani Group-linked coal mining project linked in Madhya Pradesh’s Singrauli district, alleging that it threatens ecologically sensitive forest land and could lead to the felling of more than six lakh trees.

Ramesh referred to the Union environment ministry’s May 2025 approval granted to Mahan Energen Ltd, a subsidiary of Adani Power, for coal mining operations.

“This area spans approximately 7,000 acres and was considered part of the "No-Go" zone designated for mining due to the richness of forests and the presence of elephant corridors in 2011. Under this project, more than 600,000 trees will be felled,” Ramesh wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter).

On Thursday, while hearing a plea filed by environmental activist Ajay Dubey, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the environmental clearances granted to the project.

A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard Dubey’s challenge to an April 22, 2026 order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which had dismissed his petition against the environmental clearance on the ground of delay.

The tribunal had held that the challenge to the May 2025 clearance was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under law.

Appearing for Dubey, advocate Siddharth Gupta argued before the apex court that the matter raised serious environmental concerns and warranted judicial scrutiny despite technical objections related to delay. He urged the court to invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

However, the Bench noted that the NGT had relied on the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Talli Gram Panchayat vs Union of India, which clarified the scope of limitation under Section 16 of the NGT Act.

Ramesh said the Supreme Court had permitted the petitioners to withdraw the plea and pursue other remedies available under law, effectively leaving the door open for fresh legal challenges before an appropriate forum.

“It is to be hoped that this matter, connected to critical ecological and public interest concerns, will be addressed by the high court and, of course, the Supreme Court — which has recently established its distinct stance in the Aravalli case — with the same sensitivity, rigorous scrutiny, and urgency that it demands,” he said.