Kalladi landslip was predicted five times, Amicus Curiae tells Kerala HC

The landslip at the Kozhikode-Wayanad twin-tunnel project at Kalladi that killed eight workers was "foreseen" and not an unforeseen disaster, the Kerala High Court was told on Friday. Senior Advocate Renjith Thampan, acting as amicus curiae in the High Court's ongoing suo motu proceedings on disaster management, submitted in his report before a Division Bench comprising Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preetha A K that the disaster on July 7 had been predicted in writing on five occasions.

"The Kalladi disaster was not unforeseen; it was foreseen, in writing, five times over," the report stated. The amicus contended that the interpretation that disaster management authorities could not intervene once environmental clearance had been granted was legally unsustainable. He submitted that the Disaster Management Act, 2005, imposes an independent statutory duty on disaster management authorities to identify and mitigate risks arising from development projects, regardless of environmental approvals.

The report examined compliance with the environmental clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on June 17, 2025, for the ₹2,134.50-crore twin-tube tunnel project connecting Kozhikode and Wayanad.

It noted that the clearance contained 60 conditions relating to muck disposal, worker safety, landslide monitoring and coordination with disaster management authorities. These included requirements that excavated material be disposed of only at approved locations, safety measures such as shotcreting and rock bolting be carried out wherever required, and landslide-related data be shared with the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA).

The amicus alleged that nearly one lakh cubic metres of excavated soil remained piled up near the tunnel portal instead of being transported to designated disposal sites, violating the environmental clearance conditions.

Relying on Sections 30, 33 and 34 of the Disaster Management Act, the report stated that the DDMA has statutory powers to examine construction activities, issue preventive directions and ensure compliance when disaster risks are identified. It also invoked Section 72 of the Act, which gives the legislation overriding effect over inconsistent laws and statutory instruments, including those under environmental regulations.

According to the report, the State Executive Committee's (SEC) decision effectively disabled the only statutory authority that had been actively warning about the developing hazard.

The amicus recommended that the High Court direct authorities to examine possible violations under the Disaster Management Act, the Environment (Protection) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in connection with the deaths and alleged violations of statutory directions.

The report also sought production of the project's Contractor's All Risks insurance policy, a comprehensive audit of compliance with environmental clearance conditions, suspension of construction until an independent geotechnical safety assessment is completed, immediate stabilisation and removal of remaining muck, correction of the SEC's June 3 decision, and statewide safety protocols for infrastructure projects in landslide-prone regions.

When the matter was taken up, the State sought time to process lump-sum compensation claims of the victims. The court consequently adjourned the case for two weeks.

Earlier, the court had directed the State government to ensure immediate disbursal of ex-gratia compensation to victims and ordered that hospitalisation and treatment expenses of injured persons be borne by the State for the time being.
(With LiveLaw inputs)