Centre tells Supreme Court no new hydel projects should come up in upper Ganga
Three Union Ministries submit common affidavit in top court saying the government is not in favour of permitting any new projects in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins in Uttarakhand, apart from the seven already commissioned
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The Union government (Ministries of Environment, Jal Shakti, and Power) submitted a common affidavit to the Supreme Court stating that no new hydroelectric projects should be permitted in the upper reaches of the Ganga in Uttarakhand, citing environmental fragility and past disasters. The government is only allowing the continuation of seven projects that are either commissioned or substantially built, arguing that halting them would result in stranded costs without commensurate environmental gains, while a Supreme Court-appointed committee had previously recommended allowing five additional projects.
UPSC Perspectives
Environmental
The central issue revolves around the carrying capacity (the maximum population size or environmental load a specific region can sustain without degradation) of the ecologically sensitive Himalayan region. The Himalayas are young fold mountains, inherently unstable and prone to seismic activity and mass wasting (landslides). The construction of "bumper-to-bumper" dams alters the natural flow of rivers, affecting aquatic biodiversity and disrupting sediment transport. The provides the framework for declaring areas as Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs), such as the Bhagirathi ESZ mentioned in the article, to restrict development activities. The government's hardened stance reflects an evolving understanding of the cumulative environmental impact (the combined effect of multiple projects over time) rather than just project-specific assessments. UPSC often questions the trade-off between infrastructure development and environmental conservation in fragile ecosystems like the Western Ghats and the Himalayas, making the concept of sustainable development crucial.
Geographical
The article highlights the vulnerability of the upper Ganga basin, specifically the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river systems. The region is susceptible to extreme weather events, exacerbated by climate change. Events like the 2013 Kedarnath floods (a combination of a cloudburst and subsequent glacial lake outburst flood or GLOF) and the 2021 Rishiganga flood demonstrate the severe risks. The construction of dams can amplify these risks; large reservoirs can potentially trigger reservoir-induced seismicity, and the dams themselves are vulnerable to sudden influxes of water and debris. The concept of environmental flows (e-flows), which refers to the minimum flow of water required to sustain a river ecosystem, is critical here. While the government claims the seven allowed projects don't violate norms, critics argue that the cumulative alteration of river flow is detrimental. UPSC expects candidates to integrate physical geography concepts (geomorphology, climatology) with human interventions and resulting disasters.
Governance
This case illustrates the complexities of inter-ministerial coordination and the role of the judiciary in environmental governance. Initially, the Power Ministry advocated for more projects, while the Jal Shakti Ministry opposed them. The unified stance presented to the Supreme Court signifies a consolidated policy approach. The involvement of multiple expert bodies ( under Ravi Chopra, under B.P. Das) and the subsequent highlights the reliance on scientific expertise in policymaking, but also the potential for conflicting recommendations. The state government of Uttarakhand, facing a power deficit and prioritizing revenue generation, supports these projects, creating a classic center-state conflict regarding environmental regulation versus economic development. The Supreme Court's intervention, originating from a suo motu cognizance or public interest litigation following the 2013 floods, showcases the judiciary's proactive role in environmental protection, often stepping in when executive action is deemed insufficient.