SC rejects challenge on clearance for Wayanad tunnel construction, calls it 'lifeline for Kerala'

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted for the construction of the Kozhikode-Wayanad tunnel in Kerala, noting the project's significance to the region's development.

While rejecting the petition, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal in case of any violation of the conditions of the EC during the construction of the tunnel.

During the hearing, the court observed that the project was of “national importance” and would give a new “lifeline” to the people of Kerala. It noted that the state had a high population density and difficulties in procuring land, which paved the way for road congestion.

The bench also observed that the domain experts have considered the matter and have adopted safeguards to address environmental concerns.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition filed by the Wayanad Prakrithi Samrakshana Samiti challenging Environmental clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to the Public Works Department of the Government of Kerala for construction of Twin Tube Unidirectional Tunnel Road (2+2 Lane) with a Four Lane Approach (from existing roads) for providing direct connectivity between Anakkampoyil - Kalladi - Meppadi in Kozhikode and Wayanad Districts of Kerala State.

The project involves the construction of an 8.735 km twin-tube tunnel road connecting Kozhikode and Wayanad through the Western Ghats.

The organisation approached the Supreme Court against the Kerala High Court judgement, by which the petitioner's challenge was repelled.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for the petitioners, submitted that Wayanad is a highly ecologically sensitive area, prone to landslides, and home to various rare species of animals, birds and plants. He argued that the project ought to have been treated as ‘Category A’  under the EIA notification, rather than 'Category B'.

He argued that the appraisal, which was to be conducted by the Central Government, was carried out at the State level by the SEIAA, constituting a grave illegality. The Nligiris biosphere reserve falls within a 10-kilometre radius and witnessed a deadly landslide in July 2024, killing hundreds of people. He underscored that the High Court itself had taken suo motu cognisance of the Wayanad landslide.

The bench expressed that the High Court has properly considered these arguments. It referred to the specific observation made by the High Court that “the SEAC and the CEAC took note of the villages notified as ESAs in the draft notification dated July 31, 2024, and followed the procedure of getting the project assessed by the CEAC by treating it as a Category ‘A’ project as mandated by the General Conditions appended to the EIA notification.” 

Divan argued that the High Court's finding was factually incorrect and emphasised that the project had never been classified as a Category A project. He noted that the terms of reference were not developed for a Category A project and that no appraisal had been conducted for such a classification.

“We are not against the tunnels. But it is in an ecologically sensitive area, landslide-prone, where 400 people have died,”  Divan submitted.

“Scientists and engineers will take care of that. They are in the field, they know everything. They are the actual decision makers,” CJI replied.

“If the project is executed without any hurdles, it will become the lifeline for the people. Tunnel system is the best to protect wildlife. Look at the hardship faced by the people in the area,” CJI added. Divan said that the petitioners also belong to the same area who have suffered tremendous loss.

Pointing out that rigorous conditions have been imposed, the CJI said, “It is not a case where any mechanical decision has been taken. The conditions are very rigorous. Once you follow all these things, we see no reason that this project can have any adverse impact. The only thing is that somebody will have to watch the compliance. For that, you have an entire bench(NGT) in the nearby area.” 

The bench noted that the Central Government was also a party involved in the High Court proceedings and had approved the project. Divan argued that the Central authority did not conduct an independent assessment. However, the bench disagreed, highlighting that the Central authority had imposed several conditions related to the project.

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the State, and Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj represented the Union.
(With LiveLaw inputs)