On December 14, 2021, a Supreme Court division bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath permitted the application filed by the defence ministry seeking the modification of the September 8, 2020 order that stipulated the road width under the Char Dham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojana or Char Dham Highway Development Project. The Supreme Court stated that the defence ministry’s plea was in good faith and was for the protection of the country. The Supreme Court allowed a double-lane road with paved shoulders to enable military traffic movement. On November 11, 2021, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on an appeal by the Ministry of Defence for relaxing the road width under the Char Dham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojana.
Char Dham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojana
The Char Dham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojana of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, is a flagship initiative of the Centre. The cost of the project is almost Rs 12,000 crore. The foundation stone for it was laid in December, 2016, by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It is a highway expansion project that was envisaged in 2016 for the widening of about 900 km of hill roads. This is to provide all-weather connectivity in the char dham circuit. It would cover the four major shrines of Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri, and Yamunotri, in the upper Himalayas in the state of Uttarakhand.
This project was conceived primarily to facilitate the char dham yatras, pilgrimage, and to boost tourism. However, there was a strategic angle too as the highway would also facilitate troop movement to areas closer to the China border.
Challenges in Char Dham Highway Development Project
The project was challenged by an NGO, Citizens for Green Doon in 2018 for its potential impact on the Himalayan ecology due to the cutting of trees, cutting of hills, and dumping of the excavated material.
Therefore, the SC appointed a high-powered committee, comprising 21 members, under the chairmanship of environmentalist, Ravi Chopra, to examine the issues. In July 2020, the committee submitted two reports as four members of the committee, including its chairman disagreed on the ideal width for the hill roads and recommended to limit the carriageway width to 5.5m along with 1.5m raised footpath, on the basis of March 2018 guidelines by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. However, fourteen members of the committee, who were government officials, were in favour of a road width of 12 m, as envisaged in the project—double-lane national highway with paved shoulder standards: 7 m carriageway, 1.5 m paved shoulders (the part of the highway that is adjacent to the regularly travelled portion of the highway and is on the same level as the highway) on both sides, and 1 m earthen shoulders on either side for drains and utilities on the hillside and crash barrier on valley side.
Allegations by the High-Powered Committee
In August 2020, the chairman of the high-powered committee wrote to the Ministry of Environment that the project was being implemented violating the statutory norms. He said that a wider road required additional slope cutting, blasting, tunnelling, dumping, and deforestation which would further destabilise the Himalayan terrain and increase the vulnerability to landslides and flash floods.
It was alleged that the work was being carried out without valid permission and felling of trees on different stretches, adding up to over 250 km, was being done illegally since 2017–18. In September 2018, a work order was, therefore, issued by the state forest department, but it was retroactive and legally untenable. Work on stretches adding up to over 200 km began on the basis of the old forest clearances issued to the Border Roads Organisation during 2002–2012. The committee claimed it to be illegal and in violation of the regulatory purpose, since the scope of work had changed drastically with the heavy cutting of hills. Moreover, muck had been pushed down the slope along the NH-125, posing a serious threat to the environment as well as to the local habitat.
The committee also alleged that for about 200 km, tree felling, hill cutting, and muck dumping on stretches, had commenced with a false declaration that those stretches did not fall in the Eco Sensitive Zones of Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajaji National Park, Valley of Flowers National Park, etc. Furthermore, work began on various stretches, for at least 60 km, after having withdrawn applications for forest clearance without furnishing reasons. The state government stated in its affidavit in April, 2019, that the work on certain stretches would begin only after the directions from the Supreme Court. However, work started on those stretches for about 50 km without taking the directions from the Supreme Court.
Ministry of Defence Point of View
Referring to the Chinese military build-up across the line of actual control (LAC), the union government, submitted before the Supreme Court on November 11, 2021, that wider roads are unavoidable in the char dham road project. The attorney general, K.K. Venugopal, appeared before the Supreme Court on behalf of the union government and said that wider roads were essential to transport missiles like the BrahMos and other critical military equipment. Moreover, if a landslide occurred, then army would tackle the situation.
He said that for meeting the defence needs of the country, which is at present vulnerable, roads had to be made available to the LAC in spite of landslides, snowfall, or any other condition. On the other hand, the committee argued that a disaster-resilient road was much preferable than a wider road which was prone to frequent blockages, landslides, and recurring slope failures. It opined that an intermediate width for Himalayan highways was more judicious, even for the country’s defence needs. The attorney general said that as far as the width of the roads was concerned, the report of the Indian Roads Congress should be taken into consideration.
While reacting to the debate, the defence ministry stated that it was only when situation became very serious, then there would be large volume of traffic movement in the hills. It might just be a posturing, but the defence had to be careful and on guard for any emergency. The attorney general also said that the army needed a double-lane road with paved shoulders. The opposition party argued that the Himalayas are not in a state where they could tolerate it. The state of Himalayas could not be improved. The best defence for our country are the Himalayas. If the region was not protected, the coming generations would see the impact on water security in the region.
The Supreme Court underlined that it could not be denied that the at such a height the security of the nation is at stake. The Supreme Court asked if it could override defence needs particularly in the face of the recent events. The court also asked whether the environment would triumph over the defence of the nation or the defence concerns be taken care of so that the environmental degradation does not take place.
The judgement is likely to serve as a benchmark for ‘balancing both concerns’ within the legal framework and draw a not-so-fine line between vanity projects and strategic imperative.
© Spectrum Books Pvt Ltd.