The proposed Shree Cement integrated cement plant and limestone mining project at Lum Syrman, East Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya, has faced opposition from local residents, landowners, farmers and civil society organisations over concerns relating to land rights, environmental impacts and the transparency of the public-hearing process.
The environmental public hearing scheduled for 22 May 2026 was called off amid protests and tensions at the venue. A second public hearing, held on 31 July 2026, was also disputed, with landowners and farmers alleging that they were prevented from participating in the proceedings. The controversy subsequently led to a legal challenge brought before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), questioning the validity of the July hearing and alleging procedural irregularities and barriers to public participation. Further mobilization by civil society groups followed including a sit-in protest in Khliehriat on 17 August 2026, organized by the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU), Jaintia National Council (JNC), Jaintia Students’ Union (JSU), Hynniewtrep Youth Federation (HYSF) and Federation of Khasi Jaintia and Garo People (FKJGP). The groups also burnt effigies of state political leaders to express their opposition to the project and the handling of the consultation process.
The Meghalaya government reacted by announcing a fact-finding inquiry on 26 August 2026 following discussions with KSU representatives. In September 2026, it then constituted a Fact-Finding Committee to examine the circumstances surrounding the disrupted July hearing and the environmental, social, legal and criminal implications associated with the proposed project. Civil society groups continued to question the transparency of the process and call for accountability. KSU’s East Jaintia Hills unit filed a complaint against district and pollution-control officials, alleging irregularities and suppression of public participation during the July hearing. These remain allegations pending investigation.
The controversy has intensified public debate over indigenous land rights, environmental protection, industrial development and the right of affected communities to participate meaningfully in decisions that may affect their land and livelihoods. It raises concerns about the ability of residents, landowners, farmers and civil society organisations to express their views and participate in public discussions concerning a project that may affect their land, livelihoods and environment. Restrictions on meaningful participation, if established, could discourage communities from engaging in future consultations or raising grievances over development decisions. The case also underscores the role of legal requirements for consultation as well as judicial review and accessible legal remedies in addressing disputes over procedural fairness and the rights of affected communities. It highlights the need for transparent consultation and responsive administrative mechanisms through which affected communities can communicate concerns and receive reasoned responses. The Fact-Finding Committee provides an opportunity for the state to examine the disputed proceedings and address questions regarding the conduct of the public hearing. If addressed through transparent fact-finding, compliance with applicable procedures and meaningful engagement with affected communities, the dispute could also contribute to improved consultation practices and stronger accountability in environmental decision-making.