Summary
The Court permitted double-lane roads with paved shoulders on the Rishikesh–Mana, Rishikesh–Gangotri and Tanakpur–Pithoragarh strategic routes, modifying its earlier order to that extent. Defence infrastructure needs justified the configuration, but permission depended on implementing the High Powered Committee’s unanimous environmental safeguards. The ministries had to address slope stability, muck disposal, forests, wildlife, water, disaster risks and community concerns through studies and specific measures. A Justice A.K. Sikri-led committee would monitor these three routes and report to the Court; the existing committee retained oversight elsewhere.
Issues
- Whether the earlier road-width order should be modified for three strategic feeder routes serving the border.
- What environmental safeguards and oversight were required despite permission for the wider configuration.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of IndiaEnvironmental governance required transparent, accountable and participatory decision-making that integrated sustainable development and protection of life. (¶¶ 24-36, 96-100)
- Article 246 read with Seventh Schedule, List I, Entry 23, Constitution of IndiaNational highways fell within the Parliamentary domain, providing the setting for Union road-development policy and the applicable ministry circulars. (¶ 38-44)
Held
- Sustainable development incorporated both intergenerational and present social equity. Environmental rule of law required effective institutions, scientific information, transparency and accountability, rather than ad hoc choices between development and protection. (¶ 24-36)
- The Defence Ministry’s operational assessment of infrastructure needs could not be displaced by judicial preference for narrower roads or an earlier media statement. The 2020 circular and strategic-road guidelines supported the double-lane configuration, which was proportionate to the security objective on these routes. (¶ 59-76)
- The earlier order was modified only for the three specified strategic highways. Permission did not extend to the entire project; the respondents retained liberty to seek further relief through appropriate proceedings if broader application was necessary. (¶ 76-79)
- Environmental concerns remained applicable throughout the project. The ministries’ limited and delayed measures were insufficient; permission was conditional on the unanimous recommendations outlined in the judgment, with studies and measures addressing each project’s conditions. Those recommendations were a minimum baseline. (¶ 80-100)
- Required measures addressed hill cutting and slope stability, bypass studies, safe muck disposal, pollution monitoring, afforestation, wildlife, watercourses, disaster management and dialogue with local communities. Greater expense did not excuse noncompliance with environmental rule of law. (¶¶ 82-94, 99-101)
- An Oversight Committee chaired by former Justice A.K. Sikri, assisted by NEERI and Forest Research Institute representatives, was to monitor implementation on the three specified routes. Its task was implementation review rather than a fresh environmental analysis; the existing High Powered Committee retained its role for the rest of the project. (¶ 102-104)
- The Union was to notify the committee within two weeks. Within four weeks thereafter the ministries had to provide steps taken and a timeline for remaining compliance, followed by monthly reports. The committee was to report to the Court every four months and could approach it on implementation difficulties. (¶ 103-104)
Result
Defence Ministry’s application allowed conditionally for the three strategic highways; environmental compliance and committee oversight directed; connected miscellaneous application disposed of.