Supreme Court halts railway expansion in Western Ghats to protect ecology: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (09 May 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 09 May 2022

Citation: Non-Reportable Decision

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

Can a railway expansion project be allowed to proceed through a protected wildlife sanctuary, potentially harming the fragile ecosystem? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the importance of environmental protection over developmental needs in ecologically sensitive zones. The court’s decision highlights the necessity of balancing economic progress with ecological preservation, particularly in biodiversity hotspots like the Western Ghats. This case involves a challenge to the approval granted for doubling a railway line through the Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary, raising concerns about its impact on wildlife and the environment.

Case Background

The case originated from a proposal to double the existing railway line from Castlerock (Karnataka) to Kulem (Goa), passing through the Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary and the Western Ghats. The project, proposed by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL), aimed to enhance the capacity of the existing single-line track. The Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) had initially recommended the proposal, subject to certain conditions. However, the Goa Foundation raised objections, arguing that the project would cause significant environmental damage.

The Goa Foundation filed an application before the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) on 26 June 2020, stating that the Standing Committee of NBWL had violated the orders of the Supreme Court by recommending wildlife clearances for doubling the railway line. The CEC received numerous appeals from various stakeholders, including scientists, environmentalists, and local communities. After a detailed examination, the CEC submitted Report No. 6 of 2021, recommending the revocation of the permission granted by the Standing Committee of NBWL.

The CEC highlighted the ecological importance of the Western Ghats, noting that it is one of the world’s eight biodiversity hotspots, encompassing several National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. The CEC also noted that the proposed doubling of the railway line was not likely to significantly improve the turnaround time or speed of trains, given the difficult gradient of the terrain. The CEC further pointed out that the majority of goods transported through this line were coal, and that the export of iron ore from Karnataka was being discouraged, rendering the doubling of the line unnecessary.

RVNL, on the other hand, argued that the project was essential for economic development and that all necessary clearances had been obtained. They also contended that the project would have minimal environmental impact, with mitigation measures in place. However, the CEC found that the project would lead to significant habitat fragmentation, increased wildlife casualties, and the spread of invasive weeds. The CEC also noted that the NBWL had not obtained a specific recommendation on mitigation measures from the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, before approving the project for the Goa portion.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Goa Foundation initially filed an application before the CEC, challenging the NBWL’s approval for the railway line doubling project. The CEC, after receiving numerous objections and conducting a detailed examination, submitted a report recommending the revocation of the project’s permission. The CEC’s report highlighted the ecological importance of the Western Ghats and the potential harm that the project would cause to the environment and wildlife. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, where the CEC’s recommendations were supported by the learned Senior Counsel for the CEC. The RVNL defended the project, arguing its necessity for economic development and stating that all statutory clearances had been obtained. The Supreme Court considered the arguments of all parties, including the Goa Foundation, RVNL, and the Ministry of Railways, before arriving at its decision.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and principles:

• The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: Specifically, Section 38(O) of the Act, which requires the National Tiger Conservation Authority’s (NTCA) advice before any project is approved in a tiger reserve or a critical tiger habitat. The court noted that the NBWL did not obtain the advice of NTCA for the Goa portion of the project, even though it is an important tiger corridor.
• Sustainable Development: The Court emphasized that development should meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It cited T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2008) 2 SCC 222, highlighting the need to balance development with environmental protection.
• Precautionary Principle: The Court referred to the precautionary principle as an essential feature of sustainable development, as explained in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647. This principle requires that environmental measures must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation. It also states 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 onus of proof is on the actor or the developer to show that their action is environmentally benign.

The Court also considered the constitutional duty of the State to implement a coherent and coordinated program for sustainable development based on inter-generational equity, as highlighted in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718.

Arguments

The arguments presented by the parties can be summarized as follows:

Goa Foundation

• The project involves significant diversion of forest and sanctuary land, leading to further destruction of the Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary.

• The integrity of the protected area and wildlife sanctuary would be severely affected due to felling of trees.

• Proper impact assessment on wildlife habitat and biodiversity was not carried out before the NBWL approved the project.

• The approval of NTCA is mandatory as per Section 38 (O)(g) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and the Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary is an important tiger corridor which needs to be protected.

• The doubling of the railway line would increase the dangers of severe environmental degradation, impacting climate, temperature, and species.

• Advice of Wildlife Institute of India was not obtained for the Goa portion for doubling of railway line.

• Increase in the annual requirement of coal and other raw material was not adequately demonstrated by RVNL.

Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL)

• The project is super critical and was sanctioned in 2011-2012, considering connectivity to Goa and the hinterlands.

• All statutory clearances have been obtained, including Stage II clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.

• The Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary has not been notified as a Tiger Reserve; hence, there was no need to approach the NTCA for the Goa part of the project.

• The observations of the NTCA pertained to Danderi Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka and not with respect to the project falling within the State of Goa.

• State-of-the-art wildlife mitigation measures have been adopted, and the implementation is being monitored by experts.

• A comprehensive biodiversity and environment assessment was undertaken by the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru.

• Rail over-bridges and road under-bridges would be constructed for crossing of animals.

• There has not been a single instance of death of any major animal, including tiger, since 1890s on the railway track.

• Only essential trees will be felled, and compensatory afforestation would be taken up.

Central Empowered Committee (CEC)

• The additional railway line is not likely to add to the turnaround time or speed of the train.

• More than 80% of the rakes were returning empty, indicating low utilization.

• 92% of the goods transported from Goa to Karnataka through the line was coal, and export of iron ore from Karnataka was discouraged.

• The project would severely impact wildlife in the region.

• The Standing Committee of NBWL did not obtain any specific recommendation on mitigation measures from the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

• The doubling of the existing rail line will not have any positive impact on the gradient and curvature of the new line.

• The Konkan railway line gives excellent connectivity to Northern and Southern parts of India.

• There will be reduction in the coal import which currently forms more than 90 % of goods traffic from Murmagoa Port.

• The estimate of projected increase in traffic from Karnataka to Goa furnished by the railways is not based on facts.

• The current movement of goods to Murmagoa Port constitutes only about 20% of the rakes going out from Goa.

• There are alternative ports like Krishnapatnam in east coast available with better rail connectivity.

• The opening of the forest cover in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats is likely to invite invasive weeds.

• The increased number of trains and wider openings will further fragment the habitat and will make the movement of wildlife more difficult and dangerous.

• The railway line cuts across the most important animal corridor in the Western Ghat landscape.

• The approval by NBWL has been granted in respect of Goa Portion without first obtaining the advice of NTCA.

• There is a gross under estimation of the requirement of virgin forest land for implementation of the project.

• The connectivity between Goa and Karnataka is being strengthened/improved by way of 4 laning of NH-4A and by development of new airport.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the justification for doubling the railway line would outweigh the environmental concerns raised by the Goa Foundation and supported by the CEC.

The Court also considered the sub-issue of whether the Standing Committee of NBWL ought to have sought for a report from NTCA on the Goa part of the project before granting approval for the doubling of the railway line between Castlerock to Kulem.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conclusion of the CEC and revoked the approval granted by the Standing Committee of NBWL for doubling the railway line between Castlerock to Kulem. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing development with environmental protection, especially in ecologically sensitive areas like the Western Ghats. The Court found that the Ministry of Railways and RVNL had failed to provide a substantial basis for the requirement of doubling the railway line, and that the environmental concerns raised by the Goa Foundation were valid.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2008) 2 SCC 222* to emphasize the principle of sustainable development, stating that development should not compromise the environment.
• The Court cited A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718* to highlight the State’s duty to implement sustainable development based on inter-generational equity.
• The Court referred to Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281* to underscore that economic development should not take place at the cost of ecology.
• The Court used Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647* to explain the precautionary principle, which is an essential feature of sustainable development.
• The Court cited M.C Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118* to emphasize that in case of doubt, protection of the environment would have precedence over economic interest.
• The Court noted that the Standing Committee of NBWL did not adhere to Section 38(O) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972* by not obtaining the advice of NTCA for the Goa portion of the project.

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. The Court emphasized that the precautionary principle must be applied in cases where there is a potential for irreversible damage to the environment. The Court also noted that the Ministry of Railways and RVNL had failed to provide any substantial basis for the requirement of doubling the railway line, and that the environmental concerns raised by the Goa Foundation were valid. The Court highlighted the fact that the Standing Committee of NBWL had not obtained a specific recommendation on mitigation measures from the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, before approving the project for the Goa portion.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Environmental Protection Over Development: The Supreme Court has made it clear that in ecologically sensitive areas, environmental protection should take precedence over developmental needs.
• Precautionary Principle: The judgment reinforces the importance of the precautionary principle, which requires that measures to prevent environmental degradation must be taken even in the absence of scientific certainty.
• Need for Thorough Impact Assessment: Projects in protected areas must undergo thorough impact assessments, and the views of relevant expert bodies like the NTCA and the Wildlife Institute of India must be taken into account.
• Sustainable Development: The judgment emphasizes the need for sustainable development, which balances the needs of the present with the needs of future generations.
• Burden of Proof: The onus is on the project proponent to demonstrate that their actions are environmentally benign.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the revocation of the approval for doubling the railway line would 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 under the wildlife sanctuary. RVNL was directed to submit a fresh proposal to the Standing Committee of NBWL, which shall be considered in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in ecologically sensitive areas, environmental protection should take precedence over developmental needs, and the precautionary principle must be strictly applied. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of balancing development with environmental protection and ensures that the State acts as a trustee of the environment for future generations. This case also highlights the significance of obtaining proper clearances and conducting thorough impact assessments before undertaking projects in protected areas.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India is a significant victory for environmental protection. The Court’s revocation of the approval for doubling the railway line through the Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary underscores the importance of balancing development with environmental preservation, especially in ecologically sensitive areas. The judgment reinforces the application of the precautionary principle and emphasizes the need for thorough impact assessments and compliance with statutory requirements. The decision serves as a reminder that the State has a constitutional duty to protect the environment for the benefit of present and future generations.