SC Disposes Of Concerns Over Kalsa-Bhandura Project On Mere Assurance From Karnataka That There Is No Construction

The Supreme Court put the Kalsa-Bhandura Project which threatened to disrupt peace between two neighbouring States of Karnataka and Goa, on the back-burner on Thursday, August 17, with Karnataka assuring that there has been and will be no construction activity.

On August 3, the bench of Justices Madan B.Lokur and Deepak Gupta directed the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and the State of Karnataka  to file affidavits, within one week, as to whether the State has filed an application for forest and environment clearance in relation to the project in Western Ghats, and if so, the stage of consideration of its application.   “If no application has been received, it should be specifically stated on affidavit”, the bench had directed.

The bench had taken seriously the Central Empowered Committee (CEC)’s finding in its report that 258 hectares of forest land is to be diverted for the project.   On August 2, the Goa Chief Minister, Manohar Parrikar too has called the project an ecological bomb. He felt that the diversion of water by Karnataka for the project would have negative impact on Goa’s eclogy, wild life and the Western Ghats.

The bench had made it clear that its intervention is not over the dispute regarding the construction work, which has been stayed, and is being dealt with by the Mhadei Water Disputes Tribunal.  The bench had further clarified that it was concerned with the forest-environment clearance to the project.

On Thursday, however, the bench did not grill the counsel for Karnataka, Fali Nariman, on the forest-environment clearance to the project, but asked him to stop construction work, oblivious of its own August 3 order.   When Nariman replied that there is no construction work, and the question of stay on it does not arise, the bench did not see any merit in hearing the case further, and disposed of the IA  Nos.1804 and 2526.

Having succeeded in disposing of the IAs, Narman was seen hurriedly going to Court No.2, where the hearing of the Cauvery water dispute was to resume.

The question whether the bench missed the subtle distinction which it made earlier between construction activity and the forest and environment clearance to the project, on August 17 remains unanswered.