Uttarakhand Hydro Projects Contempt Case: Supreme Court Dismisses Petition

On January 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of India delivered its ruling in Contempt Petition No. 245 of 2014, filed in Civil Appeal No. 6736 of 2013. The case, titled Anuj Joshi & Another vs. Chief Conservator of Forests & Others, alleged that the respondents had violated the Court’s directions in the 2013 judgment concerning environmental clearances for hydroelectric projects in Uttarakhand. The contempt petition was filed under Sections 2(3) and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 129 of the Indian Constitution.

Background of the Case

The contempt petition stemmed from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. vs. Anuj Joshi & Others (2014) 1 SCC 769, in which the Court expressed concerns about the 2013 Uttarakhand floods. The Court had directed:

• No new environmental or forest clearances for hydroelectric projects in Uttarakhand until further orders.
• Formation of an Expert Body to study the environmental impact of hydro projects.
• Examination of the impact of 24 proposed projects on the biodiversity of the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi River basins.
• A report from the Uttarakhand Disaster Management Authority on its preparedness for disasters.

The petitioners alleged that the respondents violated these directions by granting forest land clearance for the Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydro Project after the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Key Legal Issues

• Did the respondents violate the Supreme Court’s directions by approving forest clearance for a hydro project?
• Was the clearance granted before or after the Court’s 2013 ruling?
• Did the alleged contemnors act in bad faith or mislead the Court?

Arguments by the Petitioners

• Forest clearance for the Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydro Project was granted after the Supreme Court’s ruling on August 13, 2013, violating the Court’s directions.
• The State of Uttarakhand had transferred 80.507 hectares of forest land to the project, disregarding the ban on new clearances.
• Petitioners’ Right to Information (RTI) requests about clearances remained unanswered.
• The project’s contractor had been awarded work despite the Supreme Court’s order.

Arguments by the Respondents

• The Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydro Project had received Stage 1 clearance on June 3, 2011, and final approval on April 25, 2013, before the Supreme Court’s ruling.
• The letter dated December 6, 2013, merely communicated the pre-existing approval and did not constitute a new clearance.
• The petitioners’ allegations were false and misleading and aimed at sensationalizing the issue.
• No new decision on environmental clearance was made after the Supreme Court’s 2013 judgment.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petition, ruling that:

• The December 6, 2013, letter was not a fresh approval but merely communicated an existing decision.
• The forest clearance had been granted before the 2013 judgment, meaning there was no violation of the Court’s order.
• The petitioners’ allegations were baseless and did not warrant contempt proceedings.

“The letter dated 06.12.2013 has not taken any decision after 13.08.2013 but has merely communicated the decision taken well before 13.08.2013.”

Thus, the Court found no violation of its earlier order and dismissed the contempt petition.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Contempt of Court requires a clear and willful violation of a court order.
• Administrative communications do not constitute fresh approvals.
• Petitioners must provide concrete evidence before alleging contempt.
• The Court will not entertain petitions based on misleading or exaggerated claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case reinforces the principle that contempt proceedings must be based on genuine violations of court orders. It clarifies that mere administrative acts like communicating pre-existing approvals do not amount to contempt. The judgment ensures that environmental clearances granted before a ruling are not retroactively invalidated, thus protecting both environmental governance and lawful administrative decisions.

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

Download Judgment: Anuj Joshi & Another vs Chief Conservator of Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-01-2016.pdf