Environment ministry wanted a halt to new dams, but Attorney General now says matter to be decided by PMO
With the government binding itself in knots over the future of new hydro-dams in Uttarakhand, the Attorney General told the Supreme Court on April 13 that there is an inter-ministerial conflict on the issue, and the highest authority — the prime minister — is out of office.
He asked the court for two weeks’ time for him to come back with the Union government’s position after the PM returns from foreign visit. The environment ministry had earlier unequivocally said new dams should not be allowed in the hill state until a comprehensive one-year study is carried out.
The court is hearing a case on the future of new and existing dams in Uttarakhand in the aftermath of the 2013 tragedy that killed thousands of people in the hill state. The apex court had asked the government to ascertain if dams had played a role in the disaster and put on hold 24 new projects which were in the pipeline.
In December 2014, the environment ministry, on behalf of the Union government, told the court that hydropower projects had contributed to the disaster in Uttarakhand and no new power projects should be allowed in the hill state without a comprehensive review, that would take a year.
But, in January 2015, the Prime Minister’s Office held a meeting of top officials from the environment and power ministries, along with officials of Uttarakhand. The meeting was chaired by the principle secretary to the PM. It concluded by the PMO asking that the environment ministry in tandem with the power ministry and the Uttarakhand government present the “correct picture” before the courts “regarding the critical need of the (hydroelectric) projects in Uttarakhand for green power and for livelihoods.”
The minutes of the meeting do not mention the need for the comprehensive study the environment ministry had so far advocated or putting on hold the dams till such a study was completed.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court had asked the environment ministry to provide a report on six specific projects at first. The environment ministry set up an internal expert committee which concluded that the six projects should not be given a go-ahead in their current shape as they threatened the ecology and people of the region.
One power project, it warned, threatened the Badrinath shrine just as the 2013 disaster had wreaked havoc around Kedarnath shrine. The committee noted the six projects did have most of the requisite green clearances, but in the wake of the disaster changing the Uttarakhand landscape, the panel concluded that these clearances were outdated and should not be the basis for giving a nod to the projects.
But the AG told the court, and the court recorded, that the Union government believed the six projects “are worthy of clearance”. A signed affidavit to this tune was shared with some litigants but not formally submitted to the court. The government did not share the full report with either the other litigants or the court.
The contents of the expert panel report against the six dams was reported by media later.
In March, the apex court asked for the full report on the six dams, to be submitted by the government, even as the government sought more time for a full response. Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar, when asked at a media briefing about its changing stance through this affidavit and the AG’s statement to the apex court, said, “There is no affidavit, but there is news.”
When asked if the Union government is going to change its stance from the one taken in December 2014 to put dams on hold till a comprehensive study is done, the minister said, “That you shall know once we file the affidavit in court on April 13, 2015.”
But, on April 13 when the court heard the matter the Attorney General said that the environment ministry had asked for 6 more weeks to reply. He told the court that there was inter-ministerial disagreement on the matter and the ‘highest authority’ (read: the Prime Minister) was not in office to resolve it at the moment. He committed to come back with the Union government’s position in two weeks. The next hearing on the case is expected in first week of May.
