|
.
Tehri Dam - Verdict Awaited
A note on Tehri Dam case heard in Supreme Court by Vimal Bhai of
the Matu People's organisation.
April
2003 - After the
Uttarkashi (now in Uttaranchal state) earthquake Oct. 1992 N. D.Jayal and
Shekhar Singh had filed a public interest petition in the Supreme Court,
raising the issues regarding the controversial Tehri dam project. In the
course of this petition, in January 2002 Supreme Court ordered the
Government to present the latest status on the issues related to earthquake,
environment and rehabilitation. The Central Environment ministry, the Tehri
Hydro Development Corporation (THDC) and Government of Uttaranchal submitted
affidavits showing the latest status of earthquake, environment and
rehabilitation works.
In
February 2002, Sanjay Parikh, the petitioner's lawyer had asked information
of the status of the actions taken on the Government orders (related to
earthquake, environment and rehabilitation) passed since 1973 through a
questionnaire. Through the incomplete answers, the fact came into light that
the Governments had violated the conditions laid by the environment ministry
in its conditional acceptance.
|
The attitude of senior levels of the government
towards the judicial process was evident when the hearings
began. One junior lawyer was present in the court on behalf of
the governments. Thereafter, the governments repeatedly asked
for more time to reply the petitioner's arguments.
|
|
The Supreme Court bench comprising of
Justice Rajendra Babu, Justice Devbrat Dharmadhikari and Justice Mathur
started the final hearing on the project from 21 January 2003. It was not
expected that court would hear Tehri case in full. The Honorable Court
allowed Senior Counsel Indira Jaisingh and Sanjay Parikh in the main case.
Advocate Rajeev Dhavan argued on behalf of well known gandhian Sunderlal
Bahuguna as intervener in the main case. The advocates raised objections on
the conditional clearance given by the Ministry of Environment to the Tehri
dam project on 19 July 1990. They said that the Government had not
implemented the conditions mentioned under the environment clearance. There
has been no treatment of the catchment area and no development of the
command area. No study has been conducted for the plants and species to be
plunged in the reservoir. There is no plan for water conservation,
maintenance of quality of water and disaster/crisis management. A Bhagirathi
valley basin management corporation has also not been established. The
accepted recommendations of Hanumanth Rao committee and Expert Group on
safety, which were formed after the 74-day long fasting by Sunderlal
Bahuguna, have also not been followed by the Government
During
the first 4-day long hearing the petitioner's advocates expressed their
surprise as to how a Government official can reject the recommendations made
by an expert Group, appointed by the Government itself. It is clearly
mentioned in the environmental conditional clearance that "The
rehabilitation package covering population affecting Koteshwar dam as well
as those living on the rim of the reservoir and likely to be affected will
be prepared before 31.3.1991."
On
behalf of the petitioners, Advocate Jaisingh said that now the government is
preparing another package for two groups, according to affidavit filed by
the Uttaranchal Govt on 7 January 2003. This indicates that the government
is postponing the work, which was supposed to be completed before 12 years.
She further argued that:
- The
issue of dam's safety is related with the lives of lakhs of people
living in the areas below the dam.
- Not
having a study on flora and fauna in the Himalayan region that is full
of bio-diversity is an irreparable loss to the environment. This is not
a technical fault but intentional negligence.
- The
condition of Pari-Pasu (environmental and rehabilitation work should
progress with the raise in the height of dam accordingly) has also been
violated.
The
petitioner prayed that following directions be issued by the honorable
Court. Firstly, 2 tests (three dimensional study (3D) and second is dam
break analysis) should be undertaken. Secondly, there should be no further
construction of dam until these tests are done. Thirdly, no increase in the
water level of the reservoir; no closure of diversion tunnel no. 1 and 2 and
fourthly, appoint a commissioner by the Court (as the Court has already done
in the cases of death due to hunger) to submit a report to the Court after
reviewing the status of issues related to environment and rehabilitation
within a period of 8 weeks or within a time period as determined by the
Court. Indira Jaisingh also suggested the name of former Secretary
N.C.Saxena for this purpose.
The
monitoring process just like that in the case of the Sardar Sarovar dam on
the Narmada River was demanded for the Tehri Project so that the direction
of Pari-Pasu given under environment conditional clearance could properly be
followed. Several other issues were also raised by the petitioners’
lawyers. For example, the recommendations of Hanumanth Rao committee should
fully be applicable under which married adult of 18 years should be given 2
hectare of land considering him eligible and unmarried boys and girls should
be given 1 hectare of land. There should be a land-pricing provision in the
package providing the prices of land equal to the prices of circle rates of
2003. House construction assistance should be in accordance of the
prevailing construction costs. The reservoir should not be filled before the
completion of construction of bridges and other facilities in the cut of
area. The villages like Khand (Bhagirathi valley), Syansu, Bhald etc. which
are under the category of partially submerged villages should be considered
under the category of fully submerged under special circumstances. The
displaced people should not face repeated displacement.
On
fourth day of hearing the Supreme Court gave a chance to environmentalist
Sunderlal Bahuguna to put his arguments. The noted environmentalist
emphasized his concern on the condition of people living in hills, quality
of water, risks involved with the break down of dam, water rights of the
people of Raika Patti and the problems faced by the women in the hills and
requested the Court to give a direction to put an end to the money order
economy so that the youths of hills may stay in the hills. Rehabilitating
and forcing the residents of hills destroys the life of people. He said
plantation would support the continuous availability of water in the rivers.
Dam is a temporary solution; the residents of hills can continuously provide
water to the country. The people of hills are so strong and hard working
because they drink flowing water. Dam's water looses its vitality. He asked
that the government make arrangements for the protection of the Himalayas.
The
government on the other hand claimed that they have done good work on
environment and rehabilitation issues. They are taking care of safety
measurements for the Tehri Dam project and the also claimed that there is no
need of three-dimensional study of the dam, dam break analysis and a
disaster management plan, stating that these all are only theoretical
exercises. They said that they are not only implementing the environmental
and rehabilitation works done simultaneously with the engineering work but
also not lagging behind then the conditions of the clearance of July 1990.
The
attitude of senior levels of the government towards judicial process was
evident when the hearings began. Only one junior lawyer was present in the
court on behalf of the governments. They were repeatedly asking more time to
reply the petitioner's arguments. The Honorable Court was annoyed with the
governments and the THDC (Tehri Hydro Development Corporation) and took it
as an insult that in “such a serious case government is behaving like this
and not giving the required attention.”
Last day of hearing 25 Feb 2003
During the first half of the day Indira Jaisingh read the rejoinder of the
petitioner. She filed a list of the dams in the world where 3-dimensional
studies and dam break analyses had been done. The governments repeatedly
said in the court that these are only mental or theoretical exercises, these
studies are never made. The petitioners also filed a photo album showing the
photo of Old Tehri Town, villages going to be submerged and showing
impoundment due to closure of tunnels.
During
the second half, Rajeev Dhavan raised some legal points to which the
respondents wanted to file some papers. Indira Jaisingh firmly opposed this
and the Judges concurred that this will be an unending process and that the
respondents had had sufficient time. At the very end the Government put
forward the plea requesting the court not to stop the dam and that the
governments were ready to do whatever the court asks the government to do.
After this the bench completed the hearing and reserved the judgment.
Meanwhile
the government of Uttaranchal is trying to finish rehabilitation work on
paper. In the first week of April, the director of rehabilitation declared
that they have completed the rehabilitation upto a reservoir level of 780
meters. According to the authorities, rehabilitation of 56 villages has been
fully complete. These villages will be fully submerged. But the reality is
quite different. Oustees did not get land in many villages. For example in
the village Chamm not even house surveys have been done. Villagers of Bryani
did not get house plots. The same situation prevails at Sanyasu and
Bhaldiyana. Villagers of Badkot were going to block the stone trucks for the
dam, because they did not get land. Authorities have taken time till April
23 to resolve the issue. But they made the same promise on 28 January as
well.
Two
bridges are proposed to connect cut off area where more then 80,000 people
are living. Work on one bridge in Bhagirathi valley is now abandoned and
another in Bhilangana valley is under construction and will take more then
one and half years. In the old Tehri town people are still on dharna and
more then 200 families residing there facing serious troubles regarding
basic civic amenities. The THDC Chairman has declared that they will supply
drinking water for Delhi and Uttar Pradesh in December 2003. THDC has also
been awarded with another project in Chamoli district of Uttaranchal on
river Alaknanda.
The
nation now awaits the decision of the Supreme Court.
The
author is Convenor of the Matu People's Organisation (Matu is a local used
to mean ‘soil’). The organization is composed of uprooted Uttrakhand
citizens. Since September 2001 the organization is working in the Tehri
Dam-affected area. You can reach this group at D-105, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav
Nagar Complex, Delhi-110092. Ph.-91+11+22063871. Email : vimal_bhai@hclinfinet.com.
Courtesy
A note on Tehri Dam case heard in Supreme Court by Vimal Bhai of
the Matu People's organisation.
April
2003 - After the
Uttarkashi (now in Uttaranchal state) earthquake Oct. 1992 N. D.Jayal and
Shekhar Singh had filed a public interest petition in the Supreme Court,
raising the issues regarding the controversial Tehri dam project. In the
course of this petition, in January 2002 Supreme Court ordered the
Government to present the latest status on the issues related to earthquake,
environment and rehabilitation. The Central Environment ministry, the Tehri
Hydro Development Corporation (THDC) and Government of Uttaranchal submitted
affidavits showing the latest status of earthquake, environment and
rehabilitation works.
In
February 2002, Sanjay Parikh, the petitioner's lawyer had asked information
of the status of the actions taken on the Government orders (related to
earthquake, environment and rehabilitation) passed since 1973 through a
questionnaire. Through the incomplete answers, the fact came into light that
the Governments had violated the conditions laid by the environment ministry
in its conditional acceptance.
|
The attitude of senior levels of the government
towards the judicial process was evident when the hearings
began. One junior lawyer was present in the court on behalf of
the governments. Thereafter, the governments repeatedly asked
for more time to reply the petitioner's arguments.
|
|
The Supreme Court bench comprising of
Justice Rajendra Babu, Justice Devbrat Dharmadhikari and Justice Mathur
started the final hearing on the project from 21 January 2003. It was not
expected that court would hear Tehri case in full. The Honorable Court
allowed Senior Counsel Indira Jaisingh and Sanjay Parikh in the main case.
Advocate Rajeev Dhavan argued on behalf of well known gandhian Sunderlal
Bahuguna as intervener in the main case. The advocates raised objections on
the conditional clearance given by the Ministry of Environment to the Tehri
dam project on 19 July 1990. They said that the Government had not
implemented the conditions mentioned under the environment clearance. There
has been no treatment of the catchment area and no development of the
command area. No study has been conducted for the plants and species to be
plunged in the reservoir. There is no plan for water conservation,
maintenance of quality of water and disaster/crisis management. A Bhagirathi
valley basin management corporation has also not been established. The
accepted recommendations of Hanumanth Rao committee and Expert Group on
safety, which were formed after the 74-day long fasting by Sunderlal
Bahuguna, have also not been followed by the Government
During
the first 4-day long hearing the petitioner's advocates expressed their
surprise as to how a Government official can reject the recommendations made
by an expert Group, appointed by the Government itself. It is clearly
mentioned in the environmental conditional clearance that "The
rehabilitation package covering population affecting Koteshwar dam as well
as those living on the rim of the reservoir and likely to be affected will
be prepared before 31.3.1991."
On
behalf of the petitioners, Advocate Jaisingh said that now the government is
preparing another package for two groups, according to affidavit filed by
the Uttaranchal Govt on 7 January 2003. This indicates that the government
is postponing the work, which was supposed to be completed before 12 years.
She further argued that:
- The
issue of dam's safety is related with the lives of lakhs of people
living in the areas below the dam.
- Not
having a study on flora and fauna in the Himalayan region that is full
of bio-diversity is an irreparable loss to the environment. This is not
a technical fault but intentional negligence.
- The
condition of Pari-Pasu (environmental and rehabilitation work should
progress with the raise in the height of dam accordingly) has also been
violated.
The
petitioner prayed that following directions be issued by the honorable
Court. Firstly, 2 tests (three dimensional study (3D) and second is dam
break analysis) should be undertaken. Secondly, there should be no further
construction of dam until these tests are done. Thirdly, no increase in the
water level of the reservoir; no closure of diversion tunnel no. 1 and 2 and
fourthly, appoint a commissioner by the Court (as the Court has already done
in the cases of death due to hunger) to submit a report to the Court after
reviewing the status of issues related to environment and rehabilitation
within a period of 8 weeks or within a time period as determined by the
Court. Indira Jaisingh also suggested the name of former Secretary
N.C.Saxena for this purpose.
The
monitoring process just like that in the case of the Sardar Sarovar dam on
the Narmada River was demanded for the Tehri Project so that the direction
of Pari-Pasu given under environment conditional clearance could properly be
followed. Several other issues were also raised by the petitioners’
lawyers. For example, the recommendations of Hanumanth Rao committee should
fully be applicable under which married adult of 18 years should be given 2
hectare of land considering him eligible and unmarried boys and girls should
be given 1 hectare of land. There should be a land-pricing provision in the
package providing the prices of land equal to the prices of circle rates of
2003. House construction assistance should be in accordance of the
prevailing construction costs. The reservoir should not be filled before the
completion of construction of bridges and other facilities in the cut of
area. The villages like Khand (Bhagirathi valley), Syansu, Bhald etc. which
are under the category of partially submerged villages should be considered
under the category of fully submerged under special circumstances. The
displaced people should not face repeated displacement.
On
fourth day of hearing the Supreme Court gave a chance to environmentalist
Sunderlal Bahuguna to put his arguments. The noted environmentalist
emphasized his concern on the condition of people living in hills, quality
of water, risks involved with the break down of dam, water rights of the
people of Raika Patti and the problems faced by the women in the hills and
requested the Court to give a direction to put an end to the money order
economy so that the youths of hills may stay in the hills. Rehabilitating
and forcing the residents of hills destroys the life of people. He said
plantation would support the continuous availability of water in the rivers.
Dam is a temporary solution; the residents of hills can continuously provide
water to the country. The people of hills are so strong and hard working
because they drink flowing water. Dam's water looses its vitality. He asked
that the government make arrangements for the protection of the Himalayas.
The
government on the other hand claimed that they have done good work on
environment and rehabilitation issues. They are taking care of safety
measurements for the Tehri Dam project and the also claimed that there is no
need of three-dimensional study of the dam, dam break analysis and a
disaster management plan, stating that these all are only theoretical
exercises. They said that they are not only implementing the environmental
and rehabilitation works done simultaneously with the engineering work but
also not lagging behind then the conditions of the clearance of July 1990.
The
attitude of senior levels of the government towards judicial process was
evident when the hearings began. Only one junior lawyer was present in the
court on behalf of the governments. They were repeatedly asking more time to
reply the petitioner's arguments. The Honorable Court was annoyed with the
governments and the THDC (Tehri Hydro Development Corporation) and took it
as an insult that in “such a serious case government is behaving like this
and not giving the required attention.”
Last day of hearing 25 Feb 2003
During the first half of the day Indira Jaisingh read the rejoinder of the
petitioner. She filed a list of the dams in the world where 3-dimensional
studies and dam break analyses had been done. The governments repeatedly
said in the court that these are only mental or theoretical exercises, these
studies are never made. The petitioners also filed a photo album showing the
photo of Old Tehri Town, villages going to be submerged and showing
impoundment due to closure of tunnels.
During
the second half, Rajeev Dhavan raised some legal points to which the
respondents wanted to file some papers. Indira Jaisingh firmly opposed this
and the Judges concurred that this will be an unending process and that the
respondents had had sufficient time. At the very end the Government put
forward the plea requesting the court not to stop the dam and that the
governments were ready to do whatever the court asks the government to do.
After this the bench completed the hearing and reserved the judgment.
Meanwhile
the government of Uttaranchal is trying to finish rehabilitation work on
paper. In the first week of April, the director of rehabilitation declared
that they have completed the rehabilitation upto a reservoir level of 780
meters. According to the authorities, rehabilitation of 56 villages has been
fully complete. These villages will be fully submerged. But the reality is
quite different. Oustees did not get land in many villages. For example in
the village Chamm not even house surveys have been done. Villagers of Bryani
did not get house plots. The same situation prevails at Sanyasu and
Bhaldiyana. Villagers of Badkot were going to block the stone trucks for the
dam, because they did not get land. Authorities have taken time till April
23 to resolve the issue. But they made the same promise on 28 January as
well.
Two
bridges are proposed to connect cut off area where more then 80,000 people
are living. Work on one bridge in Bhagirathi valley is now abandoned and
another in Bhilangana valley is under construction and will take more then
one and half years. In the old Tehri town people are still on dharna and
more then 200 families residing there facing serious troubles regarding
basic civic amenities. The THDC Chairman has declared that they will supply
drinking water for Delhi and Uttar Pradesh in December 2003. THDC has also
been awarded with another project in Chamoli district of Uttaranchal on
river Alaknanda.
The
nation now awaits the decision of the Supreme Court.
The
author is Convenor of the Matu People's Organisation (Matu is a local used
to mean ‘soil’). The organization is composed of uprooted Uttrakhand
citizens. Since September 2001 the organization is working in the Tehri
Dam-affected area. You can reach this group at D-105, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav
Nagar Complex, Delhi-110092. Ph.-91+11+22063871. Email : vimal_bhai@hclinfinet.com
.
Courtesy http://www.indiatogether.org
| 
