1. Road widening project in fragile Himalayan terrain — Dispute over road-width standards and environmental compliance — Proceedings under National Green Tribunal and Supreme Court. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 815
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
Citizens for Green Doon & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No 1925 of 2020 In Civil Appeal No 10930 of 2018 With Miscellaneous Application No 2180 of 2020 In Civil Appeal No 10930 of 2018
Decided on : 14-12-2021
Important Points
The Court balanced sustainable development and the environmental rule of law with national security, permitting wider road standards for strategic border roads provided that unanimous environmental mitigation recommendations are strictly implemented to minimize ecological damage in the fragile Himalayan region.
Subject
Environmental Law - Sustainable Development
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 21, 48A – Environment (Protection) Act 1986 – Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 – Proceedings before Supreme Court – Security concerns – Present case has a history fraught with litigation, with multiple proceedings before National Green Tribunal1[“NGT”] and this Court – Before going into history of litigation, it is important to provide context for public project in question in case –Held, Objective of this Oversight Committee is not to undertake an environmental analysis of the Project afresh but to assess implementation of recommendations already provided by HPC (which court have noted in Section F.2.1). A formal notification in terms of these directions shall be issued by UOI within two weeks – Within four weeks thereafter, MoRTH and MoD shall place before Committee steps taken by them to adhere to HPC’s recommendations, along with a projected timeline for complying with remaining recommendations – Monthly reports of this nature shall be placed before Oversight Committee by MoRTH and MoD – Court further note that by order this Court, HPC was tasked with overseeing implementation of its recommendations and to suggest any further measures which may be required – To avoid any overlap between scope of work of HPC and Oversight Committee formed above in paragraph 102 and 103, we clarify that the HPC shall continue with its work on overseeing implementation of its recommendations for Project, except for national highways, which shall now fall under purview of Oversight Committee –Appeal disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- environmental law
- administrative law
- constitutional law
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) MA 1925 :By Courts Motion Siddharth Seem, Satya Mitra, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Tanima Kishore, Advocates
For the Respondent(s) MA 2180:K.K. Venugopal, Aishwarya Bhati, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Swati Ghildiyal, Ankur Talwar, Anmol Chandan, Chinmayee Chandra, Rajesh Ranjan, Vanshaja Shukla, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) MA 1925 :By Courts Motion Siddharth Seem, Satya Mitra, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Tanima Kishore, Advocates
For the Respondent(s) MA 2180:K.K. Venugopal, Aishwarya Bhati, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Swati Ghildiyal, Ankur Talwar, Anmol Chandan, Chinmayee Chandra, Rajesh Ranjan, Vanshaja Shukla, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Appellants seek narrower road-width standards to protect ecology — Union Government argues wider roads are essential for national security and troop movement along strategic borders. (Para 17 , 18 )
3. National security requirements for strategic border roads justify wider configurations — Court cannot second-guess military operational needs — Environmental mitigation must be strictly implemented via sustainable development. (Para 20 , 21 , 24 , 26 , 31 , 32 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 70 , 71 , 74 , 97 , 98 , 99 )
4. Strategic national security requirements for border infrastructure justify deviations from general environmental road-width standards, provided sustainable development and environmental rule of law are upheld. (Para 65 , 70 , 71 )
5. Modified order allowing double-lane configuration for strategic highways — Conditional upon implementing HPC environmental recommendations — Established Oversight Committee to monitor compliance. (Para 76 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 105 )
6. How is the principle of sustainable development applied to large-scale infrastructure projects in ecologically sensitive zones?
It requires balancing economic development with environmental preservation, ensuring development does not occur at the cost of ecology. It incorporates inter-generational and intra-generational equity, seeking harmony between socio-economic needs and environmental protection to ensure future generations' needs are not compromised. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 )
7. What is the environmental rule of law and its role in judicial review of developmental projects?
It integrates environmental needs with rule-of-law elements to prevent arbitrary governance. It provides a predictable framework for adjudication, ensuring transparency, accountability, and the enforcement of legal rights and obligations to align actual practice with environmental goals. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
8. Can national security requirements override general environmental guidelines for road construction in sensitive terrains?
Yes, where roads serve as strategic feeders to international borders, the operational requirements of the Armed Forces for troop and equipment movement can justify wider road configurations, as the court cannot second-guess the policy choices of the establishment entrusted with national defence. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 70 , 71 )
9. To what extent can the judiciary interfere with the infrastructural modalities decided by the Ministry of Defence?
The judiciary cannot second-guess the infrastructural needs or policy choices of the establishment entrusted with national defence, provided the decisions are bona fide and based on operational requirements for safeguarding national security. (Para 63 , 65 )
JUDGMENT :
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are:
| A. The Project..................................................................................................... 3 | |
| B. Proceedings before the National Green Tribunal........................................... 5 | |
| C. Proceedings before the Supreme Court......................................................... 8 | |
| D. Submissions ................................................................................................. 15 | |
| E. Framework of Analysis ................................................................................. 23 | |
| E.1 Principles of Sustainable Development and Environmental Rule of Law................................................................................................................ 25 E.2 Circulars and Guidelines ......................................................................... 37 | |
| F. Issues and Analysis ...................................................................................... 45 | |
| F.1 Road-Width Issue .................................................................................... 45 F.1.1 HPC Report dated 13 July 2020 ....................................................... 45 F.1.2 HPC Report dated 31 December 2020 ............................................. 51 F.1.3 Analysis on the width of road ............................................................ 53 F.2 Environmental Issues .............................................................................. 67 F.2.1 HPC Report dated 13 July 2020 ....................................................... 67 F.2.2 Analysis of the Environmental Issues ............................................... 76 | |
| G. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 80 | |
A. The Project
1. The present case has a history fraught with litigation, with multiple proceedings before the National Green Tribunal1[“NGT”] and this Court. Before going into the history of the litigation, it is important to provide context for the public project in question in the case.
2. The Chardham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna2[“Project”] is a program of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways3[“MoRTH”], which was announced on 23 December 2016. The Project aims to widen the roads of approximately 900 kms of national highways, in order to ensure safer, smoother and faster traffic movement. As the name suggests, these highways connect the holy shrines which have been labelled as the “Chote Char Dham” in the State of Uttarakhand - Yamunotri (NH-94/134 up to Janki Chatti), Gangotri (NH-108), Kedarnath (NH-109, up to Sonprayag), Badrinath (NH-58) and the Tanakpur-Pithoragarh stretch of the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra route (NH-125).
3. These shrines represent different traditions of the Hindu religion - with Yamunotri and Gangotri being Shakti or goddess shrines, Kedarnath being a Shaiva temple, and Badrinath a Vaishnava site. They are located in an area called Kedarkhand (largely today’s Garhwal) in the Skanda Purana. The locations of these shrines were earlier considered to be occupied by glaciers (named Champasar, Gangotri, Chorabari and Satopanth) in their entirety, which have since started melting. Even today, they are stated to be located in paraglacial zones, which are considered to be ecologically sensitive.
4. Till the 1950s, access to these shrines was limited and they could only be accessed on foot. Hence, worshippers often undertook long and arduous journeys to reach the shrines. However, since the 1960s, road connectivity to the shrines has improved, where vehicles now ply up to the Badrinath and Gangotri temples while Yamunotri and Kedarnath are 6 to 14 kms away from the nearest motorable road. The improved connectivity has resulted
