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
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.
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.