Wants another committee to review adverse report of experts against 6 dams
The National Democratic Alliance government, unwilling to outright reject 6 new dams in the Uttarakhand hills despite its expert panel recommending so, has decided to refer the matter to another expert body it wishes to set up, which will now review not just these six but all the projects on the Ganga basin in Uttarakhand.
It has told so to the Supreme Court, asking for six more months for a new panel of experts to sit on judgement on the recommendations of the previous set of experts who had submitted their report in February 2015 and take a comprehensive view of the matter. The government has said so in an affidavit.
The court is hearing PILs on the future of new and existing dams in Uttarakhand after the 2013 disaster that killed thousands. The court had earlier put a stay on all new dams in the state asking for clarity if the dams had played a role in the tragedy.
The centre had in response in December 2014 said that all expert panels so far indicated the dams had contributed to the damage caused during the unexpected downpour. But the court later narrowed its focus, asking the central government to first decide the fate of 6 specific projects in the pipeline.
The February 2015 report of four experts had categorically stated that the 6 specific projects would be disastrous for Uttarakhand especially after the changed geological and physical conditions of the hill state after the 2013 tragedy.
The experts had noted that though the projects had some of the mandatory green clearances these were too outdated and preceded the 2013 tragedy so could not be relied upon.
But, the government put the report under wraps and the Attorney General orally instead told the court in mid February that the projects were good to be given the nod.
The government had prepared a formal affidavit to the same effect, contradicting its own expert panel report and given it to the other parties in the Supreme Court case though it did not formally submit the affidavit to the court. The two member bench of the court recorded that the Centre would submit the formal affidavit too.
But, then the expert panel report, contradicting the Attorney General’s statement to the court was brought to light by Business Standard.
The government began seeking time from the court to submit its formal views on six specific projects. Twice the government bought time from the court stating that a final view could not be taken on the matter due to an inter-ministerial conflict in the matter.
Once out of these two times, it said the inter-ministerial conflict could not be resolved because the Prime Minister was travelling out of the country. The expert report against the six dams that the government had not provided was instead submitted to the court by one of the petitioners in the case.
It was also revealed through news reports that the Prime Minister’s office had held a meeting of environment ministry, power ministry along with the Uttarakhand officials in January 2015 to review the overall position of the government before the courts on all the proposed and existing dams in the state in wake of the 2013 tragedy.
The meeting had concluded that in tandem with the power ministry and the Uttarakhand government, the environment ministry would put the “correct picture” before the courts “regarding the critical need of the (hydroelectric) projects in Uttarakhand for green power and for livelihoods”.
It was before this meeting at the PMO, that the environment ministry had told the Supreme Court in December 2014 that it wanted an expert panel to comprehensively and cumulatively review all the projects on the Ganga basin in the hill state and that this would require a year of work.
Now the Union government has partly reverted back to its December 2014 stance where it had said an expert body would require a year to carry out a comprehensive and cumulative assessment. It has suggested that the exercise could possibly be completed in 6 months and would include an assessment of the 6 specific projects that the court had asked to look at before any other.
