Supreme Court Orders Disaster Management Sub-Committees for Mullaperiyar Dam: Russel Joy vs. Union of India (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 January 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 14

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J.

Can a constant fear of a dam burst violate the fundamental right to life? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed the critical need for robust disaster management plans for the Mullaperiyar Dam, acknowledging the apprehensions of those living in its vicinity. This judgment orders the formation of sub-committees at the central and state levels to ensure preparedness for any potential disaster. The bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, with the judgment authored by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

Case Background

The Mullaperiyar Dam was constructed under a lease agreement in 1886 between the Maharaja of erstwhile Travancore and the British Secretary of State for Madras Presidency for a duration of 999 years. The dam, built across the Periyar River, was intended to cater to the irrigation needs of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner raised concerns about the dam’s age and the safety of the people living downstream, citing the original lifespan estimate of 50 years by the project’s Chief Engineer, Mr. John Pennycuick. The petitioner also highlighted the ongoing disputes between the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu over the dam’s management and the lack of concrete steps to mitigate the fear of a potential dam burst.

Timeline:

Arguments

The petitioner, Mr. George, argued that the failure to determine the lifespan of the Mullaperiyar Dam could lead to a significant disaster. He emphasized the need for a separate disaster management plan and highlighted the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India due to the constant fear experienced by residents near the dam. The Attorney General for India, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, referred to the 2014 judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala, which had already established a Supervisory Committee. He stated that the committee was actively monitoring the dam’s safety. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Mr. Subramonium Prasad, reiterated the findings of the Empowered Committee, which had deemed the dam safe. Mr. Mohan V. Katarke, representing the State of Kerala, argued that the previous suit was primarily concerned with increasing the water level of the dam.

The arguments can be categorized as follows:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the existing mechanisms for monitoring the Mullaperiyar Dam are sufficient to address the concerns regarding disaster management, and whether additional measures are required to ensure the safety and security of the people living downstream.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court addressed the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities and legal provisions:

Judgment

The following table shows how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:

The following table shows how each authority was viewed by the Court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to address the apprehensions of the people living near the Mullaperiyar Dam. The Court recognized that while the dam’s safety had been previously assessed, the potential for a disaster required a more robust and comprehensive disaster management plan. The Court emphasized that the fear of a potential disaster could have a debilitating effect on the lives of the people and that it was the duty of the State to create a sense of confidence and ensure the safety of its citizens.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

The ratio of fact to law that influenced the court’s decision is as follows:

The logical reasoning of the Court can be illustrated as follows:

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations. The final decision was reached based on the need to ensure the safety and security of the people living downstream of the Mullaperiyar Dam.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The existing Supervisory Committee was not sufficient to address the disaster management needs.
• The fear of a potential dam burst could have a debilitating effect on the lives of the people.
• It was the duty of the State to create a sense of confidence and ensure the safety of its citizens.
• The Disaster Management Act, 2005, provided a framework for addressing such situations.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Life without basic needs of life and liberty replete with fear, is like a concept without structure, a house without a plinth, a metaphor not conveying an idea, a sea without waves or, for that matter, an idea constantly remaining in the realm of speculation.”

“It is because fear brings numbness to passion of purpose and converts an active individual a quitter who resigns himself to fate.”

“Therefore, it is the duty of the States involved to create a sense of confidence in the real sense of the term and ensure that adequate measures have been taken so that in any event safety of the individuals shall not be affected and well preserved and their life and liberty remain protected.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Central Government must constitute a Sub-Committee under Section 9 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, to monitor disaster preparedness for the Mullaperiyar Dam.
• The States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu must also constitute separate Sub-Committees under Section 21 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, to monitor disaster preparedness and provide a separate dispensation under the State plan.
• The State of Tamil Nadu, which has been directed to cooperate as per the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala, must also have a Sub-Committee for disaster management with a specific plan.
• All sub-committees must work in harmony with the Central Sub-Committee to ensure a high level of preparedness.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of disaster management and preparedness, particularly for critical infrastructure like dams. It sets a precedent for proactive measures to address public safety concerns.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The Central Government shall constitute a separate Sub-Committee under Section 9 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, to exclusively monitor measures for ensuring a high level of preparedness to face any disaster related to the Mullaperiyar Dam.
2. The State of Kerala and the State of Tamil Nadu shall also constitute separate Sub-Committees under Section 21 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, to exclusively monitor measures for ensuring a high level of preparedness to face any disaster occurring from the Mullaperiyar Dam. They must provide for a separate dispensation under the State plan as envisaged under Section 23(4) of the 2005 Act.
3. The State of Tamil Nadu shall also have a Sub-Committee for disaster management with a specific plan.
4. The constitution of all sub-committees shall be in addition to the existing Committees. All the States shall work in harmony with the Central Sub-Committee and ensure high-level preparedness to face any disaster occurring due to the Mullaperiyar Dam, so that life and property are not damaged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the safety of the Mullaperiyar Dam had been previously assessed, there was a need for a separate and robust disaster management plan to address the apprehensions of the people living in the vicinity of the dam. This judgment emphasizes the importance of disaster management and preparedness, particularly for critical infrastructure like dams. It sets a precedent for proactive measures to address public safety concerns and ensures that the State takes responsibility for the safety and security of its citizens.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Russel Joy vs. Union of India directs the formation of sub-committees for disaster management concerning the Mullaperiyar Dam. The Court acknowledged the fears of the people living downstream and emphasized the need for a comprehensive disaster management plan. This decision underscores the importance of proactive measures to ensure public safety and sets a precedent for similar cases involving critical infrastructure.