Supreme Court Halts Railway Expansion in Western Ghats: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 09, 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 509

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J., and Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a railway expansion project proceed in a biodiversity hotspot if it threatens the environment and wildlife? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the doubling of a railway line through the Western Ghats. This judgment highlights the delicate balance between development and environmental preservation, emphasizing the need for thorough impact assessments and adherence to the precautionary principle. The Supreme Court, in this case, was deciding on the permissibility of the doubling of the railway line between Castlerock (Karnataka) to Kulem (Goa) passing through the Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary. The three-judge bench, consisting of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and Aniruddha Bose, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a proposal to double the existing railway line from Castlerock in Karnataka to Kulem in Goa, a stretch of 26 km passing through the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats, specifically the Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary. The project was proposed by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL) to enhance the section capacity of the existing single-line track. The Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) had recommended the project in its 56th meeting held on 17.12.2019, subject to certain conditions, including compliance with the Chief Wildlife Warden’s stipulations and implementation of an animal passage plan. The Goa Foundation, along with various environmentalists and researchers, raised objections, arguing that the project would lead to significant environmental damage, including the felling of trees and disruption of wildlife habitats. They contended that the NBWL’s approval was in violation of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF&CC) guidelines and a previous Supreme Court order dated 05.10.2015.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Goa Foundation filed an application before the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) on 26.06.2020, challenging the Standing Committee of NBWL’s decision. The CEC, after examining the matter, submitted Report No. 6 of 2021 on 23.04.2021, recommending the revocation of the permission granted by the NBWL. The CEC highlighted the ecological importance of the Western Ghats and the potential detrimental impact of the project. The CEC also noted that the project was in violation of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF&CC) under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the order dated 05.10.2015 of the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and the principles of sustainable development and the precautionary principle. The court emphasized the importance of Section 38(O) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, which mandates obtaining advice from the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) before approving projects in tiger reserves. The court also referred to the concept of sustainable development, which requires balancing development needs with the protection of the environment and ecology. The precautionary principle was also highlighted, which requires that environmental measures must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation. The court also stressed that where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

The relevant legal provisions and principles are:

• Section 38(O) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: This section mandates that the National Tiger Conservation Authority’s (NTCA) advice is required for projects within tiger reserves. The court noted that the approval by NBWL to go ahead with the project has been granted in respect of Goa Portion without first obtaining the advice of NTCA as statutorily required under Section 38 (O) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
• Sustainable Development: The court referenced the principle of sustainable development, which requires balancing development needs with the protection of the environment and ecology. It emphasized that development should meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
• Precautionary Principle: The court also highlighted the precautionary principle, which involves anticipating environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harmful activity. It is based on scientific uncertainty and requires that environmental protection should not only aim at protecting health, property, and economic interest but also protect the environment for its own sake.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were primarily from the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), the Goa Foundation, and Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL).

Submissions by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC):

• The CEC argued that the doubling of the railway line would not significantly improve the efficiency of train operations due to the difficult terrain.
• The CEC pointed out that the existing railway line was laid in the 1890s when no other rail connectivity was available to Goa, and that the Konkan railway line now provides excellent connectivity to Northern and Southern parts of India.
• The CEC noted that the Murmagao Port Trust authorities have submitted that consequent to changes in government policy to discourage the import of coal, there will be a reduction in coal import, which currently forms more than 90% of goods traffic from Murmagao Port.
• The CEC stated that the projected increase in traffic from Karnataka to Goa furnished by the railways is not based on facts and is without any sound reasoning.
• The CEC highlighted that there are alternative ports like Krishnapatnam in the east coast available with better rail connectivity.
• The CEC emphasized that the opening of the forest cover in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats is likely to invite invasive weeds, which will destroy the natural forest.
• The CEC argued that the increased number of trains and wider openings would further fragment the habitat and make the movement of wildlife more difficult and dangerous.
• The CEC noted that the railway line cuts across an important animal corridor in the Western Ghat landscape and will be a serious impediment for the movement of long-ranging animals like tigers and elephants.
• The CEC pointed out that the approval by NBWL to go ahead with the project has been granted in respect of the Goa portion without first obtaining the advice of NTCA.
• The CEC stated that there is a gross underestimation of the requirement of virgin forest land for implementation of the project.
• The CEC noted that the connectivity between Goa and Karnataka is being strengthened by way of 4-laning of NH-4A and development of a new airport.

Submissions by the Goa Foundation:

• The Goa Foundation argued that the approval of NTCA is mandatory as per Section 38 (O)(g) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
• They contended that the Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary is an important tiger corridor that needs to be protected.
• The Goa Foundation submitted that the doubling of the railway line would increase the dangers of severe environmental degradation.
• They argued that the advice of the Wildlife Institute of India was not obtained for the Goa portion of the project.
• The Goa Foundation alleged that the increase in the annual requirement of coal and other raw materials was not adequately demonstrated by RVNL.

Submissions by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL):

• RVNL submitted that the project is supercritical and was sanctioned in 2011-2012.
• They argued that connectivity to Goa and the hinterlands was taken into account by the Ministry of Railways before the project was sanctioned.
• RVNL stated that all statutory clearances have been obtained before undertaking the doubling of the railway line.
• They contended that the Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary has not been notified as a Tiger Reserve, and therefore, there was no need for RVNL to approach the NTCA.
• RVNL argued that the CEC failed to take into account that the observations of the NTCA pertained to the Danderi Wildlife Sanctuary in the State of Karnataka and not with respect to the project falling within the State of Goa.
• They attempted to justify the project by stating that state-of-the-art wildlife mitigation measures have been adopted.
• RVNL brought to the notice of the Court a Comprehensive Biodiversity and environment assessment undertaken by the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru.
• RVNL assured the Court that Rail over-bridges and Road under-bridges would be constructed for crossing of animals.
• RVNL contended that the material that was submitted was not taken into consideration by the CEC before recommending the revocation of the license.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but the following issues were discernible from the judgment:

• Whether the approval granted by the Standing Committee of the NBWL for doubling the railway line between Castlerock to Kulem should be revoked.
• Whether the project proponent has provided a substantial basis for the requirement of doubling the railway line by addressing the impact which it would have on the habitat and the damage that it would cause to the environment.
• Whether the principle of sustainable development and the precautionary principle were adhered to by the Standing Committee of NBWL while granting approval for the project.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect the fragile ecosystem of the Western Ghats and the importance of following the precautionary principle. The Court emphasized that the project proponent, RVNL, failed to provide a substantial basis for the requirement of doubling the railway line and did not adequately address the potential environmental damage. The Court was also concerned about the lack of proper assessment of the project’s impact on wildlife, especially tigers, and the failure to obtain necessary clearances from the NTCA for the Goa portion of the project. The Court also considered the availability of alternative ports and the existing connectivity options, which reduced the need for the project. The Court’s reasoning shows a clear preference for environmental protection over economic development when the two are in conflict.

The Court considered the arguments that the project was essential for economic development and that mitigation measures would be taken. However, it rejected these arguments, noting that:

• The project proponent had not established the necessity of the project.
• The proposed mitigation measures were not sufficient to protect the environment.
• The project lacked necessary environmental clearances.

The court emphasized that the precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to prevent harm and that harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. The court observed that:

• The doubling of the railway line would not significantly improve the efficiency of train operations.
• The project would have a detrimental impact on the environment and wildlife.
• Alternative options were available for transportation of goods.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Adherence to the principle of sustainable development is a constitutional requirement. While applying the principle of sustainable development one must bear in mind that development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs.”

“The principle of precaution involves the anticipation of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harmful activity. It is based on scientific uncertainty.”

“For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the conclusion of the CEC and revoke the approval granted by the Standing Committee of NBWL for doubling the railway line between Castlerock to Kulem.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

✓ Environmental Impact Assessments are crucial for projects in ecologically sensitive areas.

✓ The precautionary principle must be strictly followed in cases of potential environmental damage.

✓ Economic development cannot come at the cost of environmental destruction.

✓ Statutory clearances, especially those related to wildlife protection, must be strictly adhered to.

✓ The Supreme Court prioritizes environmental protection over economic interests when there is a conflict.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the revocation of the approval for the doubling of the railway line will not preclude RVNL from carrying out a detailed analysis on the impact of the proposed project on the biodiversity and ecology of the protected areas. RVNL can submit a fresh proposal to the Standing Committee of NBWL, which shall be considered in accordance with law, after undertaking a comprehensive study.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that projects in ecologically sensitive areas must adhere to the principles of sustainable development and the precautionary principle, and must undergo thorough environmental impact assessments. The judgment reinforces the need for strict adherence to statutory clearances, especially under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. This case also reaffirms the Supreme Court’s position of prioritizing environmental protection over economic interests when there is a conflict. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment clarifies the application of existing principles to specific cases involving environmental protection.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to revoke the approval for the doubling of the railway line between Castlerock to Kulem underscores the importance of environmental protection in the face of developmental pressures. The judgment emphasizes the need for thorough environmental impact assessments, strict adherence to statutory clearances, and the application of the precautionary principle. This ruling sets a precedent for future projects in ecologically sensitive areas, ensuring that development is balanced with the preservation of our natural heritage.