Mullaperiyar Dam Safety: Supreme Court Orders Special Disaster Management Committees

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment on January 11, 2018, addressed the issue of the safety and lifespan of the Mullaperiyar Dam. The case, Russel Joy v. Union of India & Ors., involved a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking directives for an international expert committee to assess the dam’s lifespan and determine the appropriate time for decommissioning. The Court acknowledged the concerns but ultimately ruled that existing mechanisms were sufficient while directing the formation of special disaster management sub-committees.

Background of the Case

The Mullaperiyar Dam, constructed in 1895 under a 999-year lease agreement between the Maharaja of Travancore and the British administration of Madras, has been the subject of legal and political disputes between Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The petitioner, Russel Joy, expressed concerns over the dam’s safety, particularly its age and structural integrity, and sought its decommissioning.

The petition called for:

• An international technical agency to assess the dam’s lifespan.
• A High-Powered Committee to determine when the dam should be decommissioned.
• A financial provision by Tamil Nadu for compensation in case of a dam failure.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that:

• The dam was over 120 years old and constructed using outdated technology.
• The constant fear of a dam failure violated the fundamental rights of residents living downstream.
• Despite several legal battles, no comprehensive study had been conducted to determine the actual lifespan of the dam.
• A failure of the dam could lead to a massive loss of life and environmental damage.

Arguments by the Respondents

The Union of India and Tamil Nadu countered that:

• The Supreme Court had already addressed the dam’s safety in the 2014 case of State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala, where a five-judge bench ruled that the dam was hydrologically, structurally, and seismically safe.
• A Supervisory Committee was already in place to monitor the dam and ensure its safety.
• The State of Tamil Nadu had been following recommendations from the Central Water Commission and Dam Safety Organisation.
• The demand for an international agency was unnecessary, as India had sufficient expertise in dam safety.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court made several key observations:

• “Safety and security of the people and the nation are of paramount importance, and appropriate safeguards must be in place to prevent any irreversible environmental or human catastrophe.”
• “Life without basic needs and liberty filled with fear is unacceptable under Article 21 of the Constitution. A state of constant fear erodes an individual’s fundamental rights.”
• “A Supervisory Committee already exists to oversee the dam’s safety and has reported that no structural distress has been found.”
• “However, the petition highlights the need for greater disaster preparedness, as the mere presence of a safety committee does not eliminate the risks associated with natural disasters or dam-related emergencies.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the request for an international committee but directed the formation of additional disaster management sub-committees:

• The Central Government must constitute a dedicated sub-committee under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, to oversee disaster preparedness for Mullaperiyar Dam.
• The States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu must form their own sub-committees to coordinate disaster management efforts.
• All sub-committees must work alongside the existing Supervisory Committee to ensure a high level of preparedness.
• The steps taken should instill confidence in the public, ensuring safety and timely response in case of emergencies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed the safety of the Mullaperiyar Dam while emphasizing the need for enhanced disaster preparedness. The judgment strikes a balance between legal certainty and public concerns, ensuring that while the dam remains operational, all necessary measures are in place to protect lives and the environment.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Russel Joy vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-01-2018.pdf