The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to Uttarakhand government on a petition filed by GMR Group, seeking permission to start a hydroelectric project on Alaknanda river basin in the hill state
The Apex Court Bench of Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice Dipak Misra (both retired) had taken cognisance of hydropower projects in Uttarakhand, following the floods of 2013, which left two hydroelectricity power (HEPs) severely damaged.
This led to stay on 24 proposed plants on the Alaknanda and Bhagirath river basins of Uttarakhand. The Apex Court directed the Central government to outline a policy regarding hydropower projects, which is yet to come.
The 24 projects — many awaiting clearances from different authorities at the state and central levels at the time — were put on hold by the Supreme Court.
The top court of the country passed the order on a petition filed by Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Limited (AHPCL) in 2012, against an order of the Uttarakhand High Court about a proposed dam project.
Chaired by environmentalist Ravi Chopra, the panel furnished its report in 2014, advising against any new HEP in the area.
The petition said all these HEPs, including Bhyundar Ganga and Khiri Ganga projects by Super Hydro Electric Power Limited, Jhelum Tamak by Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (THDC), Lata Tapovan by NTPC, Alaknanda by GMR, and Kotlibel by NHPC, had all statutory permissions to begin operations.
The Supreme Court then ordered the central government to spell out its stand on the plea about the six HEPs. However, divergent views between three union ministries — environment and power on the one side, and water resources on the other — appears to have delayed the response.
The Uttarakhand government also supported the petition. It filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in August 2020, stating that the state was facing acute shortage of power and has been forced to purchase electricity amounting to Rs 1,000 crore annually.
The floods that struck Uttarakhand in June 2013 killed hundreds and wrought havoc across the state.
In August 2013, the Supreme Court directed the Central government to form a committee to assess the cumulative and individual impact of hydropower projects on the biodiversity of the two river basins, and if the existing HEPs played a role in escalating the impact of the 2013 disaster. Besides this, the Uttarakhand government was told to submit its disaster management plan to the court.
A consortium of IITs was subsequently tasked with reviewing the panel report.
The government placed both the reports before the court on 7 May 2014 and claimed the two offered conflicting assessments. It then sought permission to reconstitute the committee set up in 2013 to examine the questions set out by the SC.
But the court did not accept the government’s submission and asked it to come out with “concrete reasons for constituting another committee”.
It then issued a stop order on 24 HEPs until the central government drew appropriate conclusions on the basis of the Chopra committee report, and asked the central government to file a policy on hydropower projects.
A week later, on 13 May 2014, three public sector enterprises NTPC, NHPC and THDC moved court to seek permission to start work on their plants, claiming the projects were approved much before the court’s 2013 judgment. Later, two private firms — Super Hydro Electric Power Limited and GMR Energy Limited — applied for similar relief.
Taking note of the Ravi Chopra report, the environment ministry filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in December 2014, saying there was a direct as well as indirect impact of hydropower projects in aggravation of floods of 2013.
However, no clear policy on hydel projects in the region was tabled before the top court.
On the plea to start the six HEPs, the Supreme Court had told the government in August 2014 to submit a project-wise report, which is still awaited even after two committees were set up to look into it.
The first committee comprised four members. On February 17, 2015, the then Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi — representing the environment ministry — told the court that the committee had not found the “projects deficient on procedural and substantive requirements for the clearances issued to them.