Holding

The Court held that the DL‑PS configuration should be applied to the three strategic highways, as it is proportionate to the security concerns of the nation, and directed implementation of the HPC’s environmental recommendations.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the Chardham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna, a project to widen about 900 km of national highways in the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand, which includes three strategic border roads. Environmental groups challenged the project before the National Green Tribunal, leading to the formation of a High Powered Committee (HPC) to assess environmental and security concerns. The core dispute was whether the highways should be widened to the double‑lane with paved‑shoulder (DL‑PS) standard, as per the 2012 and 2020 MoRTH circulars, or to the intermediate‑width (IW) standard recommended in the 2018 circular. The Court, after analysing constitutional provisions, MoRTH circulars, the HPC’s majority recommendation, and the principle of sustainable development, held that the DL‑PS configuration is proportionate to national security needs for the strategic roads. It modified the earlier order to permit the DL‑PS standard for the three highways, while conditioning the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and the Ministry of Defence to implement the HPC’s unanimous environmental recommendations and to report to an Oversight Committee. The Ministry of Defence’s application was allowed and the environmental petition was disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the three strategic national highways in Uttarakhand should be widened to the double‑lane with paved‑shoulder (DL‑PS) standard or the intermediate‑width (IW) standard.
Whether the 2018 MoRTH circular applies retrospectively to ongoing projects and can override the 2020 circular and HPC recommendations.
How to balance national security requirements with the principle of sustainable development and environmental protection.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.21, s. Art.246, s. Art.48A, s. Schedule VII List I Entry 23
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
National Highways Act, 1956s. 2(2)
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

Subjects

environmental lawsustainable developmentnational highwaysroad width standardsstrategic border roadsHimalayan ecosystemMoRTH circularsHigh Powered Committeedefence securityhill cuttingmuck dumpingoversight committee

Judgment

[2021] 14 S.C.R.503 503

CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON & ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Miscellaneous Application No. 1925 of 2020
In B
(Civil Appeal No. 10930 of 2018)
DECEMBER 14, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,
SURYA KANT AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.] C
Environmental law: National highways – Double lane
carriageway width with paved shoulder standard – Road-width for
the three strategic border roads, Rishikesh to Gangotri (NH-94 and
NH-108), Rishikesh to Mana (NH-58), and Tanakpur to Pithoragarh
(NH-125) – A program “The Chardham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna” D
of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) was
announced which aimed to widen the roads of national highways
in order to ensure safer and faster traffic movement – An application
was filed before NGT, challenging the construction under the project
on the ground that the development activity has a negative impact
on the Himalayan ecosystem – NGT held that the project did not E
require any environment clearance, however, directed the
constitution of an oversight committee to monitor the environmental
safeguards – Appeal filed before Supreme Court challenging the
NGT’s order, in which order was modified and High Powered
Committee (HPC) constituted – Conclusions in the HPC Report were F
unanimous except for the issue relating to the width of the road –
Court took the cognizance of report and accepted the view of the
minority – Miscellaneous applications were filed by appellants and
Union of India seeking their respective reliefs in regard to road
width – Court directed HPC to consider the issues in applications
and to submit a detailed report – Held: National highways provide G
vital connections to the establishments of the Armed Forces –
Importance of the requirement of double-laned highways has been
emphasized for the movement of trucks, equipment and personnel
of the Armed forces – 2020 MoRTH circular states that roads in
hilly and mountainous terrain which act as feeder roads to the Indo- H
503
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A China border should be of Double lane with paved shoulder
configuration (DL-PS) standard – Considerations for construction
of highways which are of strategic importance and used by armed
Forces cannot be same as those for other roads in hilly and
mountainous regions – Need for development of national highways
of a DL-PS standard is proportionate to the object of fulfilling the
B
security concerns of the nation as assessed by the Ministry of
Defence (MoD) – Moreover, majority of the members of the HPC
recommended the adoption of the DL-PS standard as road-width
for the project – However, more than 50 per cent of the hill cutting
and double-laning has been completed on national highways –
C Therefore, partial development of the highway compliant with the
IW standard and the remaining in conformity with the DL-PS
standard would not be suitable for the needs of the Armed Forces –
Order of this court was modified to this extent – Hence, UOI and
MoD were permitted to apply a DL-PS configuration to the highways
– With respect to the environmental issues – Sustainable measures
D
must be adopted – Obligation imposed upon MoRTH and MoD to
implement recommendations made by HPC – There has to be an
assessment of the nature of the problem by obtaining actual data
for all individual projects – Mitigation measures should be
implemented for all projects.
E Doctrines/principles: Principle of Sustainable development
– Environment Rule of Law - Multi-faceted principle, which does
not prohibit development, but structures it around what is sustainable
– It not only ensures equity between the present and the future
generations but also development which ensures equity between
F different sections of society at present – There is lack of consensus
on how to ascertain whether a particular developmental project
abides by the principle – It not only creates uncertainty within the
law, but makes the application of the principle selective –
Environmental law.
G National Highways: A combined reading of Art.246 along
with Entry 23 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India
indicates that national highways fall entirely within the ambit of the
Parliamentary domain – The executive power of the Union is co-
extensive with the power of Parliament – In accordance with s.2(2)
of the National Highways Act 1956, the Union Government is
H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 505

empowered to declare any road as a national highway and issue A
directions for its development and maintenance – Within the Union
Government, the specific responsibility lies with MoRTH –
Constitution of India – Art.246; Schedule VII, List I , Entry 23.
Disposing of the Miscellaneous application, the Court
HELD: 1. The principle of sustainable development is B
deep-rooted in the jurisprudence of Indian environmental law. It
has emerged as a multi-faceted principle, which does not prohibit
development, but structures it around what is sustainable.
Sustainable development incorporates two related ideas –
development which not only ensures equity between the present C
and the future generations but also development which ensures
equity between different sections of society at present. However,
while the principle has deep roots, there is a lack of consensus
on how to ascertain whether a particular developmental project
abides by the principle of sustainable development. Without a
common benchmark or standard being applied by the Court in D
its analysis of the impact of development projects, the principle
of sustainable development may create differing and arbitrary
metrics (depending on the nature of individual projects). This
not only creates uncertainty within the law, but makes the
application of the principle of sustainable development selective, E
taking away from its potential to drive sustained change. [Para
31][532-D-F]
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
(1996) 5 SCC 281 : [1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 507; Essar
Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti (2004) 2 SCC 392 : F
[2004] 1 SCR 808 ; N.D. Jayal & Anr v. Union of India
& Ors. (2004) 9 SCC 362 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 152;
Rajeev Suri v. Delhi (2021) SCC OnLine SC 7;
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita
Sinha (2021) SCC OnLine SC 897; Hanuman Laxman
Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 401 : [2019] G
5 SCR 916; Bengaluru Development Authority v.
Sudhakar Hegde (2020) 15 SCC 63; H.P. Bus-Stand
Management & Development Authority v. Central
Empowered Committee (2021) 4 SCC 309 – relied on.
H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A 2. The Circular of 2020 states that roads in hilly and
mountainous terrain, which act as feeder roads to the Indo-China
border should be of DL-PS standard, with a 7m carriageway and
1.5m paved shoulder. Neither the 2012 nor the 2018 MoRTH
Circulars specifically addressed the issue of strategic border
roads. The considerations for development of national highways
B
in plains and in hilly and mountainous regions are not identical.
Similarly, the considerations governing the construction of
highways that are strategic roads from a defence perspective,
and may be used by the Armed Forces of the nation, cannot be
the same as those for other roads in hilly and mountainous regions.
C This Court must arrived at a delicate balance of environmental
considerations such that they do not impede infrastructural
development, specifically in areas of strategic importance crucial
to the security of the nation. This Court found that the need for
the development of national highways of a DL-PS standard is
proportionate to the object of fulfilling the security concerns of
D
the nation as assessed by the MoD. [Paras 69-71][555-A-E]
3. A majority of the members of the HPC recommended
the adoption of the DL-PS standard as road-width for the Project.
This opinion was reiterated in HPC Report II, which considered
the MA No 2180 of 2020 filed by the MoD. This Court agreed
E with the finding of the HPC. The court modified the order of this
Court dated 8 September 2020 to the extent that the national
highways from Rishikesh to Mana, Rishikesh to Gangotri, and
Tanakpur to Pithoragarh be developed according to the double-
lane carriageway width with paved shoulder standard as provided
F in the 2020 MoRTH Circular. However, liberty is granted to the
respondents to pursue appropriate legal proceedings and seek
reliefs in the event that it is necessary to implement the DL-PS
standard for the entire Project. [paras 75,76,79][558-B-C; 560-
C-E]
G 4. It is important that there must be a significant alteration
in the approach to this Project by adopting sustainable measures.
Piecemeal implementation of some mitigation measures for
protection of the environment, without any concrete strategy in
place, cannot pass muster. The Court made conditional upon
MoRTH and MoD implementing the recommendations made by
H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 507

the HPC which are unanimous. There has to be an assessment of A
the nature of the problem by obtaining actual data through relevant
studies for all individual projects. Specific mitigation measures
then should be implemented for all projects, keeping in mind
their unique concerns. This requires a concerned shift in the
approach which has been adopted till date. Making the Project
B
environmentally compliant should not be seen a “checkbox” to
be obtained on the path to development, but rather as the path to
sustained development itself. Thus, the measures adopted have
to be well thought out and should actually address the specific
concerns associated with the Project. Understandably, this may
make the Project costlier, but that cannot be a valid justification C
to not operate within the framework of the environmental rule of
law and sustainable development. Thus, this court directed that
the MoRTH and MoD can proceed with the Project subject to
the condition that it addresses all the concerns which have been
raised by the HPC and enumerated by this Court. [Paras 99, 100]
D
[569-E-H; 570-A-D]
Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy,
(2021) 3 SCC 572 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 507 relied on Para 26 E

[2004] 1 SCR 808 relied on Para 27
[2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 152 relied on Para 28
[2019] 5 SCR 916 relied on Para 34
F
(2020) 15 SCC 63 relied on Para 35
(2021) 4 SCC 309 relied on Para 36
(2021) 3 SCC 572 relied on Para 38
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
No. 1925 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 10930 of 2018. G

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2018 of the National
Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 99 of 2018.
With
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A Miscellaneous Application No. 2180 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No.
10930 of 2018.
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Siddharth Seem, Satya Mitra,
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Ms. Tanima Kishore, Advs. for the
Appellants.
B K. K. Venugopal, AG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Gurmeet Singh
Makker, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ankur Talwar, Anmol Chandan,
Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Rajesh Ranjan, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Sajal
Singhai, Advs. for the Respondents.
By Courts Motion
C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
This judgment has been divided into sections* to facilitate analysis.
They are:
D A The Project ....................................................................... 3
B Proceedings before the National Green Tribunal ............. 5
C Proceedings before the Supreme Court ........................... 8
D Submissions .................................................................... 15
E Framework of Analysis .................................................. 23
E E.1 Principles of Sustainable Development and
Environmental Rule of Law ........................................... 25
E.2 Circulars and Guidelines ................................................. 37
F Issues and Analysis ........................................................ 45
F.1 Road-Width Issue ........................................................... 45
F
F.1.1 HPC Report dated 13 July 2020.................................. 45
F.1.2 HPC Report dated 31 December 2020 ....................... 51
F.1.3 Analysis on the width of road ...................................... 53
F.2 Environmental Issues ..................................................... 67
G F.2.1 HPC Report dated 13 July 2020.................................. 67
F.2.2 Analysis of the Environmental Issues .......................... 76
G Conclusion ...................................................................... 80

*Ed. Note : The Page Nos. mentioned alongside the respective sections are as per the
H Original Judgment.
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 509
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

A The Project A
1. The present case has a history fraught with litigation, with multiple
proceedings before the National Green Tribunal1 and this Court. Before
going into the history of the litigation, it is important to provide context
for the public project in question in the case.
2. The Chardham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna2 is a program of B
the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways3, which was announced
on 23 December 2016. The Project aims to widen the roads of
approximately 900 kms of national highways, in order to ensure safer,
smoother and faster traffic movement. As the name suggests, these
highways connect the holy shrines which have been labelled as the “Chote C
Char Dham” in the State of Uttarakhand – Yamunotri (NH-94/134 up to
Janki Chatti), Gangotri (NH-108), Kedarnath (NH-109, up to Sonprayag),
Badrinath (NH-58) and the Tanakpur-Pithoragarh stretch of the Kailash
Mansarovar Yatra route (NH-125).
3. These shrines represent different traditions of the Hindu religion D
– with Yamunotri and Gangotri being Shakti or goddess shrines, Kedarnath
being a Shaiva temple, and Badrinath a Vaishnava site. They are located
in an area called Kedarkhand (largely today’s Garhwal) in the Skanda
Purana. The locations of these shrines were earlier considered to be
occupied by glaciers (named Champasar, Gangotri, Chorabari and
Satopanth) in their entirety, which have since started melting. Even today, E
they are stated to be located in paraglacial zones, which are considered
to be ecologically sensitive.
4. Till the 1950s, access to these shrines was limited and they
could only be accessed on foot. Hence, worshippers often undertook
long and arduous journeys to reach the shrines. However, since the 1960s, F
road connectivity to the shrines has improved, where vehicles now ply
up to the Badrinath and Gangotri temples while Yamunotri and Kedarnath
are 6 to 14 kms away from the nearest motorable road. The improved
connectivity has resulted in a greater influx of worshippers. The four
shrines typically open for worship in and around late April or early May, G
and close in and around late October to early November.
5. The Project was conceptualized with the aim of improving
accessibility to these shrines by widening the existing roads, making travel
1
“NGT”
2
“Project”
3
“MoRTH”
H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A safer, smoother and faster. The Project seeks to widen the existing
highways into a double lane with paved shoulder configuration4 with 16
bypasses, realignments and tunnels, 15 flyovers, 101 small bridges and
3516 culverts. The MoRTH has divided the Project into 53 individual
projects, the length of each project being less than 100 kms, traversing
the following national highways:
B
(i) NH-58 - Rishikesh to Rudraprayag - 141 kms;
(ii) NH-58 - Rudraprayag to Mana Village (Badrinath) - 140 kms;
(iii) NH-94 - Rishikesh to Dharasu - 120 kms;

C (iv) NH-94 - Dharasu to Yamunotri - 75 kms;
(v) NH-108 - Dharasu to Gangotri - 110 kms;
(vi) NH-109 - Rudraprayag to Gaurikund (Kedarnath) - 77 kms;
and
(vii) NH-125 - Tanakpur to Pithoragarh - 161 kms.
D
A pictorial representation of the connecting routes of the Project
is provided below, as taken from the report of the High Powered
Committee5 dated 13 July 20206:

E

F

G

4
“DL-PS”
5
“HPC”
6
H “HPC Report”
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 511
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

B Proceedings before the National Green Tribunal A
7
6. An Original Application was filed before the Principal Bench
of the NGT on 27 February 2018 in public interest, challenging the
construction under the Project on the ground that the development activity
has a negative impact on the Himalayan ecosystem. The applicants argued
that the Project will lead to deforestation, excavation of hills and dumping B
of muck, which will lead to further landslides and soil erosion, in an
already sensitive environment. It was also alleged that an Environment
Impact Assessment 8 under the Environment Impact Assessment
Notification 20069 had not been conducted and that to obviate the
requirement of conducting an EIA, the Project had been divided into
smaller stretches. The application alleged violations of the EIA C
Notification, Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, Wildlife Protection Act
1972, Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and Articles 14, 21 and 48A of
the Constitution. Another Original Application10 was filed seeking
directions to take precautions for muck disposal and for ensuring the
stability of slopes. D
7. In its order dated 26 September 2018, the NGT observed that
the bypasses and realignments to be made to the national highways,
which cumulatively fall under the Project, have been considered as stand-
alone projects. The length of each of these projects is less than 100 kms
and thus, the NGT held that the projects did not require an EIA approval E
or Environment Clearance11 under the EIA Notification. However, given
the fragile ecosystem within which the Project was to be developed, the
NGT directed the constitution of an ‘Oversight Committee’ to monitor
the environmental safeguards for the execution of the Project.
8. The Oversight Committee was to be headed by a former Judge F
of the Uttarakhand High Court, and had representatives from the Wadia
Institute of Himalayan Geology; National Institute of Disaster
Management; Central Soil Conservation Research Institute; GB Pant
Institute of Himalayan Environment; Forest Research Institute; the
Secretary to the Forest Department, Uttarakhand; and District
Magistrates, who were to act as co-ordinators. The task of the Oversight G

7
OA No 99/2018
8
“EIA”
9
“EIA Notification”
10
OA No 431/2018
11
“EC” H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A Committee, inter alia, was to oversee the implementation of the
Environment Management Plan to be prepared by an agency of the
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change12. The relevant
portion of the order of the NGT is produced below:
“54. Accordingly, we direct constitution of the following Oversight
B Committee:—
1. Justice U.C. Dhyani, Former Judge, Uttarakhand High Court,
Chairman Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun.
2. Representative of Wadia Institute of Himalayan and Geology.

C 3. Representative of National Institute of Disaster Management.
4. Representative of Central Soil Conservation Research Institute
with expertise in Natural disasters, landslides, etc.
5. Representative of G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan
Environment.
D
6. Representative of Forest Research Institute, Dehradun.
7. Secretary of Environment and Forest Department, Uttarakhand,
Dehradun to be Member Secretary/convener/coordinator of the
Committee.
E 8. Concerned District Magistrates of the Districts concerned will
act as co-coordinator and for arranging visits and meetings at
local level.”
C Proceedings before the Supreme Court
9. An appeal13 was filed to challenge the NGT’s order dated 26
F September 2018 before this Court. By an order dated 8 August 2019, a
two-judge Bench, comprising of Justice Rohinton F Nariman and Justice
Surya Kant, modified the order of the NGT and instead constituted an
HPC to be chaired by Professor Ravi Chopra, who would replace Justice
UC Dhyani, and also added representatives from various other bodies.
G The HPC was directed to make its decisions on the basis of majority
vote. The relevant portion of the order of this Court is as follows:
“We constitute a High Powered Committee (HPC) consisting of
the persons who are mentioned in para 54 of the said order.
12
“MoEF&CC”
13
H CA No 10930/2018, CA Nos 8518-8520/2018 and MA No 2678-2680/2018
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 513
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

However, the Committee is to be headed by Prof. Ravi Chopra, A
who will replace Justice U.C. Dhyani, and will be the Chairman
of the Committee. In addition to this, we add a representative of
the Physical Research Laboratory, Department of Space,
Government of India, Ahmedabad; a representative of the Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun; a representative of MoEF&CC,
B
Regional Office, Dehradun; and a representative of the Ministry
of Defence dealing with Border roads, not below the rank of
Director. We direct MoEF&CC to constitute the High Powered
Committee within two weeks from the date of this order. The
HPC may co-opt member(s) for effective discharge of its
functions. The MoEF&CC shall provide venue and C
secretarial assistance to the HPC, who will make decisions
by majority voting.”
(emphasis supplied)
The terms of reference of the HPC were also revised in the
following terms: D

“I. The Committee shall consider the cumulative and independent
impact of the Chardham [P]roject on the entire Himalayan valleys
and for that purpose, the HPC will give directions to conduct EIA/
rapid EIA by the Project Proponent/MoRTH.
E
II. The HPC, with the help of the technical body and
engineers of implementation agency (MoRTH) should
consider whether revision of the full Chardham [P]roject
(about 900 Kms) should at all take place with a view to
minimize the adverse impact of the project on environment
and social life. F
III. The HPC shall identify the sites in which work (i.e. hill-cutting)
has started and the stretches in which the work has not yet started.
As far as the sites in which work has started, the High Powered
Committee should recommend the measures which are required
for stabilizing the area where hill-cutting has taken place, among G
others, the environmentally safe disposal of muck which has been
generated so that it does not adversely affect the flora and fauna
of the catchment area of the river.
IV. As regards the stretches where work has not started, the
HPC will review the proposed project and recommend measures H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A which will minimize the adverse impact on environment, social
life and bring the project in conformity with the steep valley terrain,
carrying capacity, thus avoiding any triggering of new landslides
and ensuring conservation and protection of sensitive Himalayan
valleys.
B V. The HPC will assess the environmental degradation in terms
of loss of forest land, trees, green cover, water resources, dumping
of muck and impacts on the wildlife and will direct the mitigation
measures. Specific attention will be laid on protecting wildlife
corridors, and rare and endangered flora and fauna.
C VI. The HPC will assess and quantify the impact on social
infrastructure/public-life due to triggering of fresh landslides, air
pollution, frequent road blocks etc. and will suggest necessary
measures for its redressal, including preparation of disaster
management plans prior to the monsoon season.

D VII. In Bhagirathi Eco Sensitive Zone (Gangotri to Uttarkashi),
the HPC will make special provisions in its report keeping in mind
the guidelines given under the Notification of the Bhagirathi Eco
Sensitive Zone so as to avoid violations and any environmental
damage.

E VIII. The HPC will also suggest the areas in which afforestation
measures should be taken. It will also suggest the kind of saplings
which have to be planted in different terrains of Himalayas. A
separate Committee be constituted by the Forest Department of
Uttarakhand to continuously monitor and report on the website
that the saplings which have been planted have survived and grown.
F In case of non-survival of any sapling, further plantation should
be done. Compensatory afforestation should be ten times the
number of trees which have been cut. The HPC shall prepare an
effective afforestation plan ensuring its proper implementation.
IX. The HPC will invite experts from different fields and consult
G local people or hold public meeting in the local areas to take
recommendations and suggestions, as it deems fit.
X. The HPC shall consider giving specific directions to the
concerned agencies to put in the public domain the landslide-prone
areas, and their treatment by the Project Proponent, the total muck
H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 515
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

generated, and the places where it has been disposed of in an A
environmentally sound manner.”
(emphasis supplied)
The HPC was directed to submit its report of recommendations
in four months. Following the submission of the report, the Court directed
MoRTH to implement its recommendations. For this purpose, the Court B
observed:
“The reports prepared by the HPC with its recommendations shall
be given to the project Proponent i.e. MoRTH for implementation.
The HPC shall hold quarterly meetings thereafter to ensure timely
and proper compliance of its recommendations. The HPC may C
suggest any further measure which may be required, in the interest
protection and conservation of environment, after each quarterly
review meeting.”
10. Pursuant to the order of this Court, a report dated 13 July
2020 was submitted by the HPC to this Court. By an order dated 8 D
September 2020, a three-judge Bench of this Court comprising of Justice
Rohinton F Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee
took cognizance of the Report, and noted that the conclusions in the
HPC Report were unanimous, except for the issue relating to the width
of the road. A majority comprising thirteen members of the HPC was in
E
favour of applying a Circular dated 5 October 2012 issued by MoRTH14,
which stipulates that in all new projects of widening/bypass/realignment,
the width of the carriageway will be at least two-lane with paved shoulder
(DL-PS), irrespective of the traffic. According to the 2012 MoRTH
Circular, the road-way width would be 12m comprising of 7m for the
double-lane carriageway, a 1.5m paved shoulder on either side of the F
highway, and a 1m earthen shoulder on either side of the highway. A
minority comprising of 5 members, including the Chairperson, was of
the view that a subsequent Circular dated 23 March 2018 issued by the
MoRTH15 should govern the Project. The 2018 MoRTH Circular provides
that in hills and mountainous terrains, where the traffic volumes range
G
from 3,000 to 8,000 Passenger Car Units16 a day, the carriageway width
should be of intermediate lane configurations (Intermediate Width17
14
“2012 MoRTH Circular” - No. NH-14019/6/2012-P&M
15
“2018 MoRTH Circular” - No. NH-15017/ 28/ 2018 - P&M
16
“PCU”
17
“IW” H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A standard), i.e., of 5.5m width with two-lane structures. The order of the
Court accepted the view of the minority and observed:
“We have perused the conclusions and recommendations of the
report, in particular, from pages 90-93 in Part I. We are of the
view that it is correct that the 2018 MORTH circular should
B apply for the reasons given at page 93 of the report.
Consequently, the 2018 circular alone will apply. The other
directions that were issued by us on 08.08.2019 must be strictly
complied with, including the holding of quarterly meetings to ensure
timely and proper compliance of the recommendations.”
(emphasis supplied)
C
11. Following the above order, a letter dated 5 October 2020 was
received by the Registry of this Court from the Chairperson of the HPC.
Professor Chopra highlighted the steps he had taken to notify MoRTH
of the order of this Court. He stated that he had requested MoRTH to
submit a plan to bring the Project in conformity with the 2018 MoRTH
D Circular and suspend all fresh hill-cutting activities. The letter also
highlighted that Professor Chopra had received reports of tree-felling
and fresh hill-cutting on various stretches on NH-58, NH-94, et al, which
was being carried out on the basis of the old road-width standard, i.e.,
DL-PS with a 10m tarred road. The Chairperson stated that on 27
E September 2020, he had read a news report indicating that MoRTH had
informed the Government of Uttarakhand that the 2018 MoRTH Circular
would be applicable only to the proposed 13 projects where work had
not yet begun. Through this letter, Professor Chopra urged that the
directions in the order of this Court dated 8 September 2020 should be
strictly followed. The letter dated 5 October 2020 was converted into
F MA No 1925 of 2020, which is the subject-matter of this judgment.
Further, another letter dated 2 November 2020 was received from
Professor Chopra, where he highlighted the non-compliance of the order
of this Court and raised issues regarding the functioning of the HPC.
12. An affidavit was filed by the seventh appellant (Swami
G Samvidanand) seeking, inter alia, directions to MoRTH to:
(i) stop hill-cutting, tree-felling and activities in violation of the
2018 MoRTH Circular;
(ii) compensate for hill-cutting beyond the IW standard with tree
plantations and footpath; and
H (iii) render full secretarial assistance to the HPC.
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 517
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

13. An interlocutory application, IA No 6097 of 2021, was later A
filed by the sixth appellant (Deepak Chand Ramola) seeking the following
directions:
(i) that the amendment to the 2018 MoRTH Circular through the
Circular dated 15 December 202018, should be revoked;
(ii) that the IW standard be adhered to for the entire Project, B
both prospectively and retrospectively, as mentioned in this
Court’s order dated 8 September 2020;
(iii) that the Bhagirathi Eco Sensitive Zone19 be given special
protection;
C
(iv) that the HPC be strengthened to ensure proper implementation
of its functions; and
(v) on the basis of the findings of the HPC, a committee be set
up to direct an inquiry against the persons responsible for
wilful violations of the laws in force. D
14. Another miscellaneous application, MA No 2180 of 2020, was
then filed by the Union of India20, through the Ministry of Defence21,
seeking modification of this Court’s order dated 8 September 2020, which
is also the subject matter of this judgment. This application seeks
permission for the widening of the national highways from Rishikesh to
E
Mana, Rishikesh to Gangotri, and Tanakpur to Pithoragarh to a two-
lane, DL-PS configuration. The application avers that a minority of the
members of the HPC, whose view was adopted by this Court in its
order dated 8 September 2020, relied on a statement of the then Chief of
Army Staff which confirmed that the requirements of the Indian Army
are fulfilled by the existing roads. However, according to the Union F
Government, there has been a material change in circumstances,
necessitating an improvement of roads to enable movement of troops
and equipment to Army stations on the Indo-China border. Thus, the
application has urged that a double lane road having a carriageway width
of 7m (or 7.5m) is necessary to meet the Army’s requirement. The
G
relief which has been sought in the application, is extracted below:

18
“2020 MoRTH Circular” – No. NH-15017/28/2018-P&M
19
“BESZ”
20
“UOI”
21
“MoD” H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A “Modify the Order dated 08.09.2020 and direct that the national
highways from Rishikesh to Mana, from Rishikesh to
Gangotri and from Tanakpur to Pithoragarh may be developed
to 2 lane configuration in the interest of the security of the nation
and for the defence of its borders”.
B (emphasis supplied)
15. By an order dated 2 December 2020, a three-judge Bench
comprising of Justice Rohinton F Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha and Justice
KM Joseph directed the HPC to consider the issues raised by its
Chairperson in his letters and applications, including the application by
C the MoD, and to submit a detailed report. Pursuant to the order of this
Court, the 11th meeting of the HPC was held on 15 and 16 December
2020. The report22 of the deliberations and submissions of the HPC was
received by the Registry from the Secretary, Forest Department, State
of Uttarakhand through a letter dated 31 December 2020.

D 16. This is where the matter stands presently. We shall consider
the submissions urged by the parties.
D Submissions
17. Mr Colin Gonsalves, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants, urged the following submissions:
E
(i) Issues concerning the functioning of the HPC: The HPC
was not allowed to function independently and was given
inadequate assistance by the UOI:
(a) The HPC consisted of 8 District Magistrates, 5 State
Government officials, 2 Union Government officials and
F
5 representatives from institutions funded by the State
and Union Governments. The members of the HPC
linked to the government voted en bloc and toed the
‘official line’, rather than basing their judgment on a
scientific basis; and
G (b) The Chairperson of the HPC faced opposition from the
UOI, as they were unwilling to cooperate with the work
of the HPC. The Chairperson had repeatedly written to
MoRTH, regarding the plan of action for slope

22
H “HPC Report II”
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 519
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

stabilisation, muck disposal and restoration of damaged A
slopes; to the State, pointing out that the original order
of the NGT did not stipulate District Magistrates to be
members of the HPC and that their role was limited to
coordination with the local population; to the UOI, to
provide inventory of vulnerable slopes and muck; and
B
to the MoEF&CC, regarding the continuing hill-cutting
activities. However, no concrete action was taken by
any of the parties;
(ii) Violations committed by MoRTH: MoRTH has been
constructing roads and widening the highways in violation of
the 2018 MoRTH Circular and the order of this Court dated C
8 September 2020:
(a) MoRTH started widening the highways according to
the DL-PS standard, in violation of the 2018 MoRTH
Circular which provided for adherence to the IW
standard; D

(b) During the deliberations of the HPC, massive hill-cutting
and deforestation activities were undertaken, which have
caused irreversible damage to the Himalayan
environment;
E
(c) After the order of this Court dated 8 September 2020,
MoRTH has continued to undertake hill-cutting, tree-
felling, tarring and unrelated activities;
(d) Despite the order of this Court, MoRTH has taken a
stand that the order will only be implemented for the 13 F
projects where the work has not yet started. However,
the order of 8 September 2020 stated that the 2018
MoRTH Circular alone has to be followed and will apply
retrospectively, i.e., it will be applicable to the entire
Project, even where the work had already been initiated;
G
(e) MoRTH, in a recent notification dated 10 September
2020 which was advertised in the newspapers, proposed
the acquisition of land for a toll booth. The toll is only
applicable on roads of DL-PS standard;

H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A (iii) Road-width: The minority view, adopted by this Court in its
order dated 8 September 2020, to construct the highways
with an IW standard must be upheld as:
(a) According to the Manual of Specifications and Standards
for Two Laning of Highways with Paved Shoulder23
B published by the Indian Roads Congress24 in June 2015,
the vehicle size in India cannot exceed a width of more
than 2.4m. Thus, an intermediate lane of 5.5m on a linear
profile and 7m on curves, is sufficient for two large
vehicles to cross each other;
C (b) The fragile environment of the Himalayas will be
severely damaged if the DL-PS standard is adopted.
As opposed to this, the IW standard will ensure reduction
of green cover loss, reduce landslides, land loss, and
tree loss by 80-90 per cent;

D (c) The 2012 MoRTH Circular is inappropriate for mountain
roads as it can cause massive instability and
environmental damage. As opposed to this, the 2018
MoRTH Circular is specific to hilly and mountainous
areas, and should be adopted instead; and

E (d) The amendments made by the 2020 MoRTH Circular
are arbitrary as they reinstate the 2012 MoRTH Circular
without engaging with the rationale of having an IW
standard for mountainous areas;
(iv) Security concerns: The national security concerns regarding
F the widening of the strategic roads are also met as:
(a) The arguments raised by the MoD were considered by
the HPC Report. It was after consideration of these
views that the Court had passed the order dated 8
September 2020;
G (b) To meet the defence requirements, it is essential that
disaster-resilient roads be built, instead of disaster-prone
roads;

23
“2015 IRC Guidelines”
24
H “IRC”
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 521
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(c) The Project was not an initiative of the MoD, and was A
a project to increase the tourist inflow to over 9,000
vehicles per day. The HPC Report has noted that this
projection is an exaggeration as Badrinath, which has
the maximum tourist inflow, has only 1000 vehicles per
day and has already reached its carrying capacity; and
B
(d) The Chief of Army Staff in an interview had commented
on the all-weather road project and stated that the needs
of the Army are being met by the existing infrastructure.
18. In opposition to this, Mr KK Venugopal, Attorney General for
India, made submissions in support of the application filed by the UOI C
and the MoD. The application seeks a modification of the order dated 8
September 2020 to allow the national highways from Rishikesh to Mana,
Rishikesh to Gangotri, and Tanakpur to Pithoragarh to be developed
with a DL-PS standard. The following submissions were urged:
(i) Requirement of DL-PS standard for strategic border D
roads:
(a) The national highways from Rishikesh to Mana,
Rishikesh to Gangotri, and Tanakpur to Pithoragarh act
as feeder roads to the Indo-China border and have
strategic importance; E
(b) The minority opinion in the HPC Report relied on the
statement of the Chief of the Army Staff, according to
which the present infrastructure was adequate for the
needs of the Army. However, there has been a change
in the circumstances since, and it is necessary that F
personnel and equipment move swiftly to Army stations
at the Indo-China border points. The movement requires
that vehicles returning from the border are able to cross
vehicles going in the opposite direction without causing
road-blocks or coming to a dead halt. Thus, a
carriageway with a width of 7m is necessary to meet G
the security concerns of the country;
(c) These road-posts have been in use since the war with
China in 1962. With the increase in defence capability;
the nature of weapons, tanks and machinery; and the
H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A conditions at the border, wider roads with a DL-PS
standard are required;
(d) Neither the 2012 MoRTH Circular nor the 2018 MoRTH
Circular deal with the security needs of the country.
The 2018 MoRTH Circular, which is general in nature,
B is based on PCU traffic and is applicable to all the hilly
areas. However, it did not consider the strategic
requirement for movement of military vehicles in the
Himalayan regions, closer to the border areas;
(e) The Armed Forces have sufficient human-power,
C machinery and equipment to deal with landslides on any
of these roads and can clear the way for movement of
Army vehicles, machinery, tanks and artillery;
(f) Prior to 2017, the development of these roads was under
the Border Roads Organization25. However, in 2017, to
D develop these roads in a timebound manner, a portion
was handed over to the Public Works Department26 and
the National Highways and Infrastructure Development
Corporation 27. Before the commencement of the
Project, the road from Rishikesh-Mana already had a
7m wide carriageway, except in some stretches where
E the width was 3.75-5.5m;
(g) The Guidelines for the Alignment Survey and Geometric
Design of Hill Roads28 adopted by the IRC in 2019 also
recommend a two lane uniform design for strategic
border roads; and
F
(h) This need is further highlighted, given that across the
border in China, Tibet, Nepal and in the China-Pakistan
corridor, strategic roads are built with the DL-PS
standard;
(ii) The BESZ was notified by the Union Government through a
G
notification dated 18 December 2012. However, in 2018, the
notification was amended to state that work related to national
25
“BRO”
26
“PWD”
27
“NHIDCL”
28
H “2019 IRC Guidelines”
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 523
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

security infrastructure can be implemented without due study A
of environmental impacts;
(iii) All-weather roads are also necessary for connectivity of
persons living in remote border areas;
(iv) Mitigation measures: The following mitigation steps have
been undertaken to ensure that least environmental and B
ecological damage is caused by the Project:
(a) The Geological Survey of India29 and MoRTH have
signed a Memorandum of Undertaking to conduct
geological studies of strategic roads near the Indo-China
border; C

(b) Tehri Hydroelectric Development Corporation30 is being
engaged for project management consultancy services
for restoration of slopes;
(c) The Defence Geo-Informatics Research D
Establishment31 is providing sustainable mitigation
measures for snow avalanches and other natural
calamities; and
(d) Slope stabilisation works and protection measures and
landslide protection measures using soil nailing,
E
‘shotcreting’, secured drapery, et al, are being
undertaken;
(v) Compliance with the directions of this Court: No hill-
cutting activities for road-widening have been carried out by
the executing agencies. In fact, MoRTH took the following
F
steps to comply with the order of this Court:
(a) Directions were issued to all executing agencies, such
as BRO and NHIDCL, to implement the order of this
Court;
(b) A Draft Rapid EIA Report was submitted to the HPC G
on 16 September 2020;

29
“GSI”
30
“THDC”
31
“DGIRE” H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A (c) Details of vulnerable slopes and muck disposal sites
were submitted to the HPC on 25 September 2020;
(d) A committee has been formulated to develop a
permanent landslide mitigation strategy;
(e) 12,75,813 plants have been planted in 797.28 hectares
B as compensatory afforestation, and 5,45,268 plants are
to be planted in future;
(f) Secretarial assistance was provided to the HPC by the
State of Uttarakhand under an order dated 7 October
2020; and
C
(g) Out of the 40 sanctioned projects within the Project,
12m formation cutting has already been carried out in
537 kms out of the total sanctioned length of 662 kms,
prior to the order of this Court dated 8 September 2020.
In such a situation, where hill-cutting has already been
D carried out for 12m formation and 10m tarred road has
been laid down, a substantial reduction of the width to
5.5m will result in non-uniform carriageway in short
stretches.
19. Having addressed the rival submissions, we shall now analyse
E them.
E Framework of Analysis
20. Before we analyse the specific issues raised in the context of
the Project, it is important to consider the framework within which this
Court must consider them. It is important for us to take note of the
F
relevant judicial pronouncements on the subject, as well as understand
the requirements of the circulars and guidelines which have been issued
in regard to these issues. However, given the specific setting of the
Project in the heart of the Himalayas, our framework has to take into
account the unique ecology of the Himalayas. The appellants have
G provided this Court with examples from the past and the recent history
of the Himalayas, which demonstrate that a lack of foresight in
development has led to significant environmental harm.
21. Speaking about the Himalayas, the obvious place to begin is
their majesty. The Himalayas are considered to be India’s border in the
H north, just as the vast Indian ocean is in its south. In laypersons’
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 525
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

geographical terms, it is difficult to imagine that these majestic mountains A
are nothing more than the debris created during the collision of the Indian
and Eurasian tectonic plates several million years ago. While the debris
has solidified into rock in many places, it continues to be soil and rubble
in others. In comparison to many others, the Himalayas are actually
very young (when the point of reference is a comparison of ages in the
B
millions). This lends to them a comparative fragility32. The HPC Report
notes that “the still evolving Himalayan ranges consist of thrusted, jointed
or sheared, fissured or twisted rock material interspersed with soil. Shorn
of green cover, their slopes [are] even more fragile. When exposed to
the monsoon rains, weakened slopes often collapse”33.
22. The Himalayan range is in itself diverse and cannot be C
characterized through one common idea or pattern. Broadly speaking, it
is divided into three categories: the Higher Himalayas (called “Himadri”),
which contain some of the highest mountain peaks, are often snowbound
through the year and are sparsely populated; the Lower Himalayas (called
“Himachal”), which contains medium-sized mountains and highly D
populated regions; and the Sub-Himalayas (called “Shivalik”), which are
the southernmost ranges of the Himalayas. Each of these have their
own ecology, rainfall and snowfall distribution, flora and fauna. The
concerns associated with each of them are different and have to be
accounted for while adjudicating upon environmental issues raised with
development projects. E

23. In a 2018 report published by the NITI Aayog, these concerns
were noted with pointed reference to the effects of the tourism industry.
The report noted34:
“Current forms of tourism in the [Indian Himalayan Region] are F
unsustainable. They replace traditional and aesthetic architecture
with inappropriate, non-aesthetic and often dangerous
constructions, and compound other challenges such as poorly
designed roads and associated infrastructure, inadequate solid

32
Michael P Searle and Peter J Treloar, “Introduction to Himalayan tectonics: a modern
G
synthesis” in Peter J Treloar and Michael P Searle (eds), Himalayan tectonics: A
Modern Synthesis (The Geological Society, 2019)
33
HPC Report, page 34
34
“Contributing to Sustainable Development in the Indian Himalayan Region” (August
2018, NITI Aayog) available at <http://164.100.94.191/niti/writereaddata/files/
document_publication/doc6.pdf> accessed on 6 December 2021 H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A waste management, air pollution, degradation of watersheds and
water sources, loss of natural resources, biodiversity, and
ecosystem services.”
Similarly, relying upon the NITI Aayog’s conclusions, the HPC
Report also notes35:
B “…the Himalaya call for a new development paradigm in which
development must be fully embedded in the environmental, socio-
cultural and sacred tenets of the IHR. It has been observed that
the present demand-driven, uncontrolled economic growth has
led to haphazard urbanization, environmental degradation and
C increased risks and vulnerabilities, seriously compromising the
unique values of Himalayan ecosystems.”
It is In the backdrop of these observations that we must consider
the principles applicable to the judicial review which this Court must
undertake in the present case.
D E.1 Principles of Sustainable Development and
Environmental Rule of Law
24. Sustainable development is a common benchmark through
which all development projects are judged. Arguably finding its origin in
global policy from the Bruntland Report in 1987, it is often defined as
E “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”36. Adopted
globally as the standard for development by nations, it is the bedrock
upon which the Sustainable Development Goals37 have been laid out.
Their latest iteration, consisting of 17 SDGs, was adopted by all United
F Nations member States in 2015. Titled as the “2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development”38, these SDGs are broad, with their focus
being on overall development of society in a manner which comports
with environmental preservation now and in trust for the future. SDG13
specifically focuses on “Climate Action”, which is to be balanced with
the other SDGs (such as SDG9, which encourages “Industry, Innovation
G and Infrastructure”).
35
HPC Report, page 43
36
“Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common
Future” (1987) available at <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/
5987our-common-future.pdf> accessed on 6 December 2021
37
“SDGs”
38
H Available at <https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda> accessed on 7 December 2021
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 527
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

25. The principle of sustainable development has found consistent A
application in matters of environmental law. Sustainable development
has a multi-dimensional approach, with a focus on the development of
the economy, protection of individual rights and environmental concerns,
while ensuring both inter and intra-generational equity. This allows the
principle of sustainable development to look beyond creating policy goals
B
(which necessarily seek specific outcomes) towards creating policy
approaches (which rather seek to provide better frameworks)39. The
principle of sustainable development has been explicitly recognized in
multiple judgments of this Court.
26. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of
India40, a three-judge Bench of this Court described the principle of C
sustainable development in the following terms:
“31…While economic development should not be allowed to take
place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment
destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to preserve
ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other D
developments. Both development and environment must go hand
in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the
cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be
development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of
environment. This is sought to be achieved by issuing notifications E
like the present, relating to developmental activities being carried
out in such a way so that unnecessary environmental degradation
does not take place. In other words, in order to prevent ecological
imbalance and degradation that developmental activity is sought
to be regulated.”
F
27. In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti41, a two-judge
Bench of this Court referred to the Stockholm Declaration while
elucidating on the principle of sustainable development. It noted that
while socio-economic needs could be fulfilled through development,
environmental concerns will always remain. However, these concerns
should not be seen as a deadlock between development and the G
environment but as an opportunity to harmonize both, through the principle
39
J B Ruhl, ‘Sustainable Development: A Five-Dimensional Algorithm for Environmental
Law’ (1999) 18 Stanford Environmental Law Journal 31
40
(1996) 5 SCC 281
41
(2004) 2 SCC 392 H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A of sustainable development. Speaking through Justice Ruma Pal, this
Court observed:
“27. This, therefore, is the aim, namely, to balance economic and
social needs on the one hand with environmental considerations
on the other. But in a sense all development is an environmental
B threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid
increase in the population together with consequential demands
to sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of open
lands, cutting down of forests, the filling up of lakes and pollution
of water resources and the very air which we breathe. However,
there need not necessarily be a deadlock between development
C on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective
of all laws on environment should be to create harmony between
the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the altar of the
other…”
28. In N.D. Jayal & Anr v. Union of India & Ors42, a three-
D judge Bench held that a balance between developmental activities and
environmental protection could only be maintained through the principle
of sustainable development. Doing this was held to be necessary, without
which the future generations could be in jeopardy. Justice S Rajendra
Babu (speaking for himself and Justice Mathur) held:
E “22. Before adverting to other issues, certain aspects pertaining
to the preservation of ecology and development have to be noticed.
In Vellore Citizen’’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India [(1996) 5
SCC 647] and in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2002) 4 SCC
356] it was observed that the balance between environmental
F protection and developmental activities could only be maintained
by strictly following the principle of “sustainable development”.
This is a development strategy that caters to the needs of the
present without negotiating the ability of upcoming generations to
satisfy their needs. The strict observance of sustainable
development will put us on a path that ensures development while
G protecting the environment, a path that works for all peoples and
for all generations. It is a guarantee to the present and a bequeath
to the future. All environment-related developmental activities
should benefit more people while maintaining the environmental

42
H (2004) 9 SCC 362
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 529
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

balance. This could be ensured only by strict adherence to A
sustainable development without which life of the coming
generations will be in jeopardy.”
Justice Babu also noted that while the right to a clean environment
is guaranteed as an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to life and
personal liberty, the right to development can also be declared as a B
component of Article 21:
“24. The right to development cannot be treated as a mere right
to economic betterment or cannot be limited as a misnomer to
simple construction activities. The right to development
encompasses much more than economic well-being, and includes C
within its definition the guarantee of fundamental human rights.
The “development” is not related only to the growth of GNP. In
the classic work, Development As Freedom, the Nobel prize
winner Amartya Sen pointed out that “the issue of development
cannot be separated from the conceptual framework of human
right”. This idea is also part of the UN Declaration on the Right to D
Development. The right to development includes the whole
spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social process,
for the improvement of people’’ well-being and realization of their
full potential. It is an integral part of human rights. Of course,
construction of a dam or a mega project is definitely an attempt to E
achieve the goal of wholesome development. Such works could
very well be treated as integral component for development.”
29. More recently, in Rajeev Suri v. Delhi43, a three judge Bench
of this Court had to decide on the permissibility of the Central Vista
Project. In considering the use of the principle of sustainable development, F
Justice A M Khanwilkar observed that the principle of sustainable
development necessarily incorporates within it the principle of development
– development which is sustainable and not environmentally degrading.
He holds thus:
“507. The principle of sustainable development and precautionary G
principle need to be understood in a proper context. The
expression “sustainable development” incorporates a wide
meaning within its fold. It contemplates that development
ought to be sustainable with the idea of preservation of
43
2021 SCC OnLine SC 7 H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A natural environment for present and future generations. It
would not be without significance to note that sustainable
development is indeed a principle of development—it posits
controlled development. The primary requirement
underlying this principle is to ensure that every
development work is sustainable; and this requirement of
B
sustainability demands that the first attempt of every agency
enforcing environmental rule of law in the country ought to
be to alleviate environmental concerns by proper mitigating
measures. The future generations have an equal stake in
the environment and development. They are as much
C entitled to a developed society as they are to an
environmentally secure society. By Declaration on the Right
to Development, 1986, the United Nations has given express
recognition to a right to development. Article 1 of the Declaration
defines this right as:
D “1. The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue
of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to
participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural
and political development, in which all human rights and
fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.”
E 508. The right to development, thus, is intrinsically connected to
the preservance of a dignified life. It is not limited to the idea of
infrastructural development, rather, it entails human development
as the basis of all development. The jurisprudence in
environmental matters must acknowledge that there is
immense inter-dependence between right to development
F and right to natural environment. In International Law and
Sustainable Development, Arjun Sengupta in the chapter
“Implementing the Right to Development [International Law and
Sustainable Development–- Principles and Practice, Edn. 2004,
pg. 354]” notes thus:
G “… Two rights are interdependent if the level of enjoyment of
one is dependent on the level of enjoyment of the other…””
(emphasis supplied)

H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 531
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

30. Similarly, in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai A
v. Ankita Sinha44, another three judge Bench of this Court ruled on the
powers of the NGT under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010. This
Court noted the significance of environmental justice and environmental
equity, and highlighted how environmental harms cause disproportionate
implications for the economically or socially marginalized groups. Thus,
B
it was considered important to ensure that environmental equity was
achieved, through the use of principles such as sustainable development.
In this regard, speaking through Justice Hrishikesh Roy, the Court held:
“XI. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND ENVIROMENTAL
EQUITY
C
82. The conceptual frameworks of environmental justice and equity
should merit consideration vis-à-vis the NG’’s domain and how its
functioning and decisions can have wide implications in socio-
economic dimensions of people at large. The concept of
environmental justice is a trifecta of distributive justice, procedural
justice and justice as recognition.[Schlosberg D, Defining D
Environmental Justice : Theories, Movements, and Nature (Oxford
University Press 2009)] Environmental equity as a developing
concept has focused on the disproportionate implications
of environmental harms on the economically or socially
marginalized groups. The concerns of human rights and E
environmental degradation overlap under this umbrella term, to
highlight the human element, apart from economic and
environmental ramifications. Environmental equity thus stands
to ensure a balanced distribution of environmental risks as
well as protections, including application of sustainable
development principles. F

83. Voicing concerns about the disproportionate harm for the poor
segments, Lois J. Schiffer (then Assistant Attorney General,
Environment & Natural Resources Division (ENRD), U.S.
Department of Justice) and Timothy J. Dowling (then Attorney at
ENRD) in their Reflections on the Role of the Courts in G
Environmental Law, wrote the following evocative passage on
the concept of environmental justice,

44
2021 SCC OnLine SC 897 H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A “Environmental Justice, which focuses on whether minorities and
low-income people bear a disproportionate burden of exposure to
environmental harms and any resulting health effects. In the past
ten to fifteen years, this issue has crystallized a grass-roots
movement that combines civil rights issues with environmental
issues, with a goal of achieving “environmental justice” or
B
“environmental equity”, which is understood to mean the fair
distribution of environmental risks and protection from
environmental harms.”[Schiffer, L. J., & Dowling, T. J. (1997).
Reflections On The Role Of The Courts In Environmental Law.
Environmental Law, 27(2), 327-342]”
C (emphasis supplied)
31. The principle of sustainable development is deep-rooted in the
jurisprudence of Indian environmental law. It has emerged as a multi-
faceted principle, which does not prohibit development, but structures it
around what is sustainable. Sustainable development incorporates two
D related ideas – development which not only ensures equity between the
present and the future generations but also development which ensures
equity between different sections of society at present. However, while
the principle has deep roots, there is a lack of consensus on how to
ascertain whether a particular developmental project abides by the
E principle of sustainable development. Without a common benchmark or
standard being applied by the Court in its analysis of the impact of
development projects, the principle of sustainable development may create
differing and arbitrary metrics (depending on the nature of individual
projects). This not only creates uncertainty within the law, but makes
the application of the principle of sustainable development selective, taking
F away from its potential to drive sustained change.
32. A cogent remedy to this problem is to adopt the standard of
the ‘environmental rule of law’ to test governance decisions under which
developmental projects are approved. In its 2015 Issue Brief titled
“Environmental Rule of Law: Critical to Sustainable Development”, the
G United Nations Environment Programme45 has recommended the
adoption of such an approach in the following terms46:

45
“UNEP”
46
Available at <https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/10664/issue-
H brief-erol.pdf?sequence=1&amp%3BisAllowed=> accessed on 7 December 2021
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 533
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

“Environmental rule of law integrates the critical environmental A
needs with the essential elements of the rule of law, and provides
the basis for reforming environmental governance. It prioritizes
environmental sustainability by connecting it with fundamental
rights and obligations. It implicitly reflects universal moral values
and ethical norms of behaviour, and it provides a foundation for
B
environmental rights and obligations. Without environmental rule
of law and the enforcement of legal rights and obligations,
environmental governance may be arbitrary, that is, discretionary,
subjective, and unpredictable.”
33. UNEP has further reiterated the importance of the
‘environmental rule of law’ in its 2019 report titled “Environmental Rule C
of Law: First Global Report”, where it notes:
“Environmental rule of law is key to achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals. Indeed, it lies at the core of Sustainable
Development Goal 16, which commits to advancing “rule of law
at the national and international levels” in order to “[p]romote D
peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development,
provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable
and inclusive institutions at all levels.”
[…]
E
Environmental law and institutions have grown dramatically in
the last few decades, but they are still maturing. Environmental
laws have taken root around the globe as countries increasingly
understand the vital linkages between environment, economic
growth, public health, social cohesion, and security. Countries have
adopted many implementing regulations and have started to F
enforce the laws. Too often, though, there remains an
implementation gap.
Environmental rule of law seeks to address this gap and align
actual practice with the environmental goals and laws on the books.
To ensure that environmental law is effective in providing an G
enabling environment for sustainable development, environmental
rule of law needs to be nurtured in a manner that builds strong
institutions that engage the public, ensures access to information
and justice, protects human rights, and advances true accountability
for all environmental actors and decision makers…”
H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A 34. Within the Indian context, environmental rule of law was first
applied by this Court in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of
India 47. In that case, the Government of Goa had mooted a new
international airport at Mopa in Goa in 1997. While the MoEF&CC gave
it an EC, it ultimately came to be challenged before this Court. In its
decision, a two-judge Bench of this Court found a lack of information
B
transparency in the disclosures filed by project proponents, and directed
a fresh exercise for a rapid EC to be carried out. In emphasizing on
environmental governance within a rule of law paradigm, Justice DY
Chandrachud observed:
“J. Environmental Rule of Law
C
[…]
144. The environmental rule of law provides an essential
platform underpinning the four pillars of sustainable
development — economic, social, environmental and peace
D [United Nations Environment Programme, First Environmental
Rule of Law Report. Available at <https : //wedocs.unep.org/
bitst ream/handle/20.500.11822/27279/Envir onme ntal
_rule_of_law.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowe d=y>]. It imbues
environmental objectives with the essentials of rule of law
and underpins the reform of environmental law and
E governance [ United Nations Environment Programme, First
Environmental Rule of Law Report. Available at <https : //
wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/27279/
Environmental _rule_of_law.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowe d=y>] .
The environmental rule of law becomes a priority particularly when
F we acknowledge that the benefits of environmental rule of law
extend far beyond the environmental sector. While the most direct
effects are on protection of the environment, it also strengthens
rule of law more broadly, supports sustainable economic and social
development, protects public health, contributes to peace and
security by avoiding and defusing conflict, and protects human
G and constitutional rights [ United Nations Environment Programme,
First Environmental Rule of Law Report. Available at <https : //
wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/27279/
Environmental _rule_of_law.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowe d=y>] .
Similarly, the rule of law in environmental matters is
H 47
(2019) 15 SCC 401
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 535
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

indispensable “for equity in terms of the advancement of A
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the provision
of fair access by assuring a rights-based approach, and the
promotion and protection of environmental and other
socioeconomic rights [ “UN Environment, Environmental Rule
of Law”. Available at <https : //www.unenvironment.org/explore-
B
topics/environmental-rights-and-governance/what-we-do/
promoting-environmental-rule-law-0>] .”
145. […] Thuspprox.terizedd, it encompasses the
preservation, and when possible even the expansion of the
substantive freedoms and capabilities of people today
without compromising the capability of future generations C
to have similar — or more — freedoms. The intertwined
concepts of environmental rule of law thus further
intragenerational as well as intergenerational equity.
(emphasis supplied)
D
Thus, the Court acknowledged that consistent decision-making
on its behalf was a crucial factor in upholding the environmental rule of
law.
35. In Bengaluru Development Authority v. Sudhakar
Hegde48, a two-judge Bench of this Court observed that there was no E
winner in environmental litigation, since both – development and protection
of environment – are necessary. The Court clarified that a framework
created by environmental rule of law has to balance both these
considerations by creating transparent and accountable institutions, while
allowing for participatory democracy. Justice DY Chandrachud, speaking
for the Court, held: F
“94. The adversarial system is, by its nature, rights based. In the
quest for justice, it is not uncommon to postulate a winning side
and a losing side. In matters of the environment and
development however, there is no trade-off between the
two. The protection of the environment is an inherent G
component of development and growth.
95. The protection of the environment is premised not only on the
active role of courts, but also on robust institutional frameworks

48
(2020) 15 SCC 63 H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A within which every stakeholder complies with its duty to ensure
sustainable development. A framework of environmental
governance committed to the rule of law requires a regime
which has effective, accountable and transparent
institutions. Equally important is responsive, inclusive,
participatory and representative decision-making.
B
Environmental governance is founded on the rule of law
and emerges from the values of our Constitution. Where
the health of the environment is key to preserving the right
to life as a constitutionally recognised value under Article
21 of the Constitution, proper structures for environmental
C decision-making find expression in the guarantee against
arbitrary action and the affirmative duty of fair treatment
under Article 14 of the Constitution. Sustainable
development is premised not merely on the redressal of
the failure of democratic institutions in the protection of
the environment, but ensuring that such failures do not take
D
place.”
(emphasis supplied)
36. In H.P. Bus-Stand Management & Development
Authority v. Central Empowered Committee49, a three-judge Bench
E held that environmental rule of law was no panacea which allowed for a
clear set of solutions in every case, since every case was unique and
with differing levels of actual evidence. However, it did provide a
framework within which any case could be adjudicated in a predictable
manner, keeping in mind the principles of sustainable development at its
core. Justice DY Chandrachud, speaking for the Court, held:
F
“52. The need to adjudicate disputes over environmental
harm within a rule of law framework is rooted in a principled
commitment to ensure fidelity to the legal framework
regulating environmental protection in a manner that
transcends a case-by-case adjudication. Before this mode
G of analysis gained acceptance, we faced a situation in which,
despite the existence of environmental legislation on the
statute books, there was an absence of a set of overarching
judicially recognised principles that could inform

49
H (2021) 4 SCC 309
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 537
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

environmental adjudication in a manner that was stable, A
certain and predictable.
53. However, even while using the framework of an environmental
rule of law, the difficulty we face is this — when adjudicating
bodies are called on to adjudicate on environmental infractions,
the precise harm that has taken place is often not susceptible to B
concrete quantification. While the framework provides valuable
guidance in relation to the principles to be kept in mind while
adjudicating upon environmental disputes, it does not provide clear
pathways to determine the harm caused in multifarious factual
situations that fall for judicial consideration. The determination of
such harm requires access to scientific data which is often times C
difficult to come by in individual situations.
54…the environmental rule of law calls on us, as Judges, to
marshal the knowledge emerging from the record, limited
though it may sometimes be, to respond in a stern and
decisive fashion to violations of environmental law. We cannot D
be stupefied into inaction by not having access to complete details
about the manner in which an environmental law violation has
occurred or its full implications. Instead, the framework,
acknowledging the imperfect world that we inhabit, provides
a roadmap to deal with environmental law violations, an E
absence of clear evidence of consequences
notwithstanding.”
(emphasis supplied)
37. Having now established the framework of judicial principles
necessary for this Court to adjudicate the present matter, it is important F
to consider the specific set of circulars and guidelines which are
applicable.
E.2 Circulars and Guidelines
38. A combined reading of Article 246 along with Entry 23 50 of
G
List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India indicates that national
highways fall entirely within the ambit of the Parliamentary domain. The
executive power of the Union is co-extensive with the power of
Parliament. In accordance with Section 2(2) of the National Highways
50
“23. Highways declared by or under law made by Parliament to be national highways.” H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A Act 1956, the Union Government is empowered to declare any road as
a national highway and issue directions for its development and
maintenance51. Within the Union Government, the specific responsibility
lies with MoRTH. Hence, we must first begin by analyzing the relevant
circulars which have been issued by MoRTH.
B 39. The first of these is the 2012 MoRTH Circular, which was
titled “Capacity building and lane width of National Highways”. It stated:
“I am directed to inform that Ministry intends to take up
development of such National Highways having carriageway
width less than the two lane width. These roads are to be
C developed to a minimum level.
2. Generally, the carriageway width is dictated by the expected
traffic. National Highways which are the primary route have higher
expectation from the consideration of level of service as well as
from safety consideration. This aspect was deliberated in the
D Ministry, and observed that the NHs are serving the mixed traffic.
Besides, India has the dubious distinction in terms of fatalities on
roads and there is need to segregate slow moving traffic from
fast moving traffic.
3. In the above back ground to ensure safe and smooth traffic on
E NHs, it has been decided that efforts be made to convert all
the NHs to a minimum level of two lane with paved
shoulders. Towards implementation of this, henceforth
whenever new projects of widening/bypass/realignment are
taken up, the width of the carriageway shall be at least two
lane with paved shoulders irrespective of the traffic
F thereon.”
(emphasis supplied)
The 2012 MoRTH Circular provides that every national highway,
if it was presently less than of a two-lane width (i.e., less than 7m) or if
it was under development, had to henceforth meet the requirement of
G
the DL-PS standard in order to ensure safety and the smooth flow of
traffic. Accompanying this circular, was the following pictorial
representation of the new national highway width:

51
H Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy, (2021) 3 SCC 572
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 539
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

A

As we can note from the above depiction, the highway would be
of a two-lane width (i.e., 7m) with each of its sides being flanked by
B
1.5m of paved shoulders, which would be followed by 1m of earth/
granular shoulders.
40. Following the 2012 MoRTH Circular, the IRC (an apex body
of engineers in relation to road development) issued its 2015 IRC
Guidelines in relation to the standards to be followed while developing
highways with the DL-PS specification. Section 13 of the Guidelines C
dealt with the special requirements for hilly roads. While it is not necessary
for us to explain the specific requirements, the 2015 IRC Guidelines
highlight that highways with the DL-PS standard could be constructed
for hilly roads.
41. The 2012 MoRTH Circular was modified by the 2018 MoRTH D
Circular, which was titled “Standards for Lane width of National
Highways and roads developed under Central Sector Schemes in Hilly
and Mountainous terrains”. As the name suggests, the 2018 MoRTH
Circular modified the 2012 MoRTH Circular to the extent that it applied
to national highways in hilly and mountainous terrains. The relevant E
portions of the Circular read as follows:
“On the subject of “Capacity building and lane width of National
Highways”, it has been stipulated vide this Ministry’s letter No.
NH-14019/6/2012-P&M dated 05.10.2012 [2012 MoRTH
Circular] that width of carriageway shall be at least two lane with F
paved shoulders irrespective of the traffic thereon in new projects
undertaken for widening of carriageway/ bypasses/realignments.
2. However, challenges have come to the fore in adhering to these
standards in the context of National Highways and roads in hilly
and mountainous terrains. These challenges arise on account of G
destabilization of hill slopes and progressive damaging effects on
road alignments and structures in higher contours on hills due to
excavation works, requirement for large-scale felling of precious
trees, associated environmental damages. Resultantly, there arises
need to provide largescale protection works, acquisition of
additional land for Right of Way (ROW), etc. H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A […]
4. The provisions of Ministry’s letter No. NH-14019/6/2012-P&M
dated 05.10.2012 [2012 MoRTH Circular], have, accordingly, been
reviewed and it has been decided with the approval of the
Competent Authority that the following provisions shall be applicable
B henceforth for National Highways and roads under Central Sector
Schemes in hilly and mountainous terrains until further orders:
[…]
4.4 Following specific provisions shall be made for traffic
volumes ranging from 3,000 PCUs/day to about 8,000/day:-
C
(i) The carriageway width shall be of intermediate lane
configurations, i.e. of 5.5 m width (18 ft), with two-lane
structures (23 ft.).
(ii) The passing places may have widths of 2.5 m and 12 m
D length and these may be provided on alternate sides of the
road. The length of the tapered section may be 6 m on either
side of their approaches. Accordingly, the length of the
passing places may be 24 m inclusive of the tapered length.
[…]
E (vii) The Roadway width for Hilly and Mountainous Terrain
as per IRC: SP-2015 (Manual of Specifications and
Standards for Two laning of Highways with paved shoulder)
[2015 IRC Guidelines] would stand amended accordingly.
4.5 For traffic volume of more than 10,000 PCUs/day or
F the existing traffic volumes likely to witness a fast growth
to reach this level within a period of 3 to 5 years, the
carriageway width shall be of two lane NH configurations,
i.e. of 7 m width. The carriageway widths shall be of two
lane NH configurations with paved shoulders only in cases
where the traffic is likely to increase at about more than 10
G % per annum.
5. The provisions of Ministry’s letter No. NH-14019/6/2012-P&M
dated 05.10.2012 [2012 MoRTH Circular] shall continue to be
applicable in all other cases.”

H (emphasis supplied)
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 541
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

The 2018 MoRTH Circular modifies its precursor of 2012 for A
hilly and mountainous terrains in the following ways: (i) for areas where
the PCUs are in the range of 4,000-8,000 PCUs per day, the carriageway
width cannot be of DL-PS configuration but has to be of IW standard
(i.e., 5m); (ii) along with this, adequate passing places with 2.5m width
have to be included; (iii) the 2015 IRC Guidelines stood amended; (iv)
B
for areas where the PCUs are more than 10,000 per day (or expected to
reach that level within 3 to 5 years), the carriage way width could be of
double lane configuration (i.e., 7m); and (v) where the traffic is likely to
increase by more than 10 per cent per annum, the width could be of DL-
PS configuration.
42. Subsequently, the IRC issued its 2019 IRC Guidelines in relation C
to hilly roads. Of particular importance is Clause 6.2.2, which reads as
follows:
“6.2.2 Width of carriageway, shoulders and roadway for various
categories of roads are given in Table 6.2.
D
Table 6.2 Widths of Carriageway, Shoulder and Roadway
[…]

E

F

G

Notes:
[…] H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A 6. On roads subject to heavy snow fall, where snow clearance is
done over long periods, roadway width may be increased by 1.5
m. However, the requirement of such widening may be examined
with reference to ground conditions in each case considering terrain
traffic and other influencing conditions and factors.
B […]
8. Strategic and border roads for military/paramilitary/security
forces operations/movements shall be constructed for not less
than two lane carriageway alongwith paved shoulder on hill side
+ paved and earthen shoulder on valley side on same lines of
C national highway.”
Clause (8) of the Notes attached to Clause 6.2.2 provides that if
a road is a strategic or a border road and is going to be used for
“military/paramilitary/security forces operations/movements”, then
it must be of DL-PS configuration (along with earthen shoulders),
D “on the same lines” as other national highways.
43. Finally, the 2020 MoRTH Circular modifies the 2018 MoRTH
Circular, in view of the suggestions received from the MoD. The circular,
titled “Standards for Lane width of National Highways and roads
developed under Central Sector Schemes in Hilly and Mountainous
E terrains”, provides as follows, in so far as is material:
“MoRT&H had issued circular on “Standards for Lane width of
National Highways and roads developed under Central Sector
Schemes in Hilly and Mountainous terrains” vide this Ministry’s
letter of even number dated 23rd March, 2018 [2018 MoRTH
F Circular]. The standards prescribed therein have been
further reviewed in the Ministry in light of the issues raised
by Ministry of Defence. A committee of Chief Engineers
considered the suggestions received in this regard and have
recommended modifications to the standards prescribed in the
circular referred above.
G
2. It is observed that the standards prescribed in the circular
referred above does not address the issues concerning strategic
roads as stipulated in clause 6.2.2 of IRC: 52-2019 (Guidelines
for the Alignment Survey & Geometric Design of Hill Roads)
[2019 IRC Guidelines].
H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 543
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

3. Accordingly, in partial modification of the circular cited above, A
the following additional guidelines are notified with immediate effect.
“For roads in hilly and mountainous terrain which act as
feeder roads to the Indo-China border or are of strategic
importance for national security, the carriageway width should
be 7m with 1.5m paved shoulder on either side.”” B
(emphasis supplied)
The 2020 MoRTH Circular amends the earlier circular of 2018
since its directions were incompatible with the recommendations under
Clause (8) of the Notes attached to Clause 6.2.2 of the 2019 IRC
Guidelines, according to which every strategic and border road has to be C
of DL-PS configuration along with earthen shoulders. Hence, the 2020
MoRTH Circular provides that roads which may be located in hilly and
mountainous regions but serve as feeder roads to the Indo-China border
or are of strategic importance for national security should also be of
DL-PS configuration. D
44. On a combined reading of the 2012, 2018 and 2020 MoRTH
Circulars and 2015 and 2019 IRC Guidelines, it emerges that a road
shall be of a DL-PS configuration in the following circumstances: (i) if it
is a national highway, other than in hilly or mountainous terrain; (ii) in
hilly or mountainous terrain, a national highway can be double-laned if E
there are more than 10,000 PCUs per day or that level will be reached in
3 to 5 years; (iii) in hilly or mountainous terrain, a national highway can
be of DL-PS configuration if the traffic is likely to increase more than
about 10 per cent per annum; and (iv) in hilly or mountainous terrain,
any road (including a national highway) can be of DL-PS configuration
if it is strategic or a border road serving as a feeder road to the Indo- F
China border or if it is of strategic importance to national security.
FIssues and Analysis
F.1 Road-Width Issue
45. The issue that arises for consideration is regarding the road- G
width to be adopted for the three strategic border roads, as indicated in
MA No 2180 of 2020 filed by the MoD, namely: Rishikesh to Gangotri
(NH-94 and NH-108), Rishikesh to Mana (NH-58), and Tanakpur to
Pithoragarh (NH-125). Broadly speaking, the appellants have argued
that the present road infrastructure is sufficient to meet the needs of the
H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A Indian Army. Any further development, it has been urged, must be
balanced keeping in mind the fragility of the Himalayas, the excessive
damage caused to the environment and the need to ensure disaster-
resilient roads. On the other hand, the UOI has stressed on the necessity
of developing these feeder roads, for the security of the nation. Given
the proximity of the roads to the Indo-China border, and the necessity of
B
free movement for transport of trucks, machines, equipment and personnel
of the Indian Army, double lane configuration must be allowed, according
to the UOI. To analyse the issue, we shall first advert to the findings of
the HPC.
F.1.1 HPC Report dated 13 July 2020
C
46. The HPC report was finalized by its members functioning
under Professor Ravi Chopra as its Chairperson. For the preparation of
the HPC Report, the members conducted site-visits, held meetings,
interacted with the officers of MoRTH, district officials and the local
communities. The Report is divided into twelve chapters, each of which
D touches upon various aspects of the Project such as road-widening; hill
cutting; bypasses; muck dumping; environment quality; loss of forests
and green cover; impact on wildlife; managing water courses; disaster
management and socio-cultural perspectives. For the purpose of the
issue for consideration, i.e., the width of roads on the national highways,
E Chapter II is of utmost relevance. The remaining chapters have been
briefly summarized in Section F.2.1 of this judgment.
47. Chapter II of the HPC Report titled ‘Road Widening’ deals
with the construction of highways and the width of roads. For determining
the width of the road, the HPC highlighted the following factors are to
F be borne in mind: ecological concerns, social concerns, traffic surveys,
capacity of roads, geometric design, terrain classification, design speed,
sight distance or visibility, right of way and setback distance at horizontal
curves.
48. According to the Indian Roads Congress Hill Roads Manual
52
G 1998 , the following type of roads have been indicated, based on traffic
volumes:

52
H “IRC Manual”
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 545
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

A

B

49. The 2012 MoRTH Circular, however, provided that for new
projects of widening/bypass/realignment, the width of the carriageway
will be at least two lane with paved shoulders, irrespective of the traffic.
50. During the field visit, the HPC observed that though the routes C
for the Project are designed for the DL-PS standard, in certain stretches
the formation width varies from 12m to 20m depending on the geometric
requirements. Further, many of the existing stretches, which were already
developed to an IW standard, are being widened. Due to the uniform
standard, in some areas large hill-cutting has been undertaken resulting
in vertical slopes without adequate slope protection measures. This has D
led to landslides and reflects inadequate assessment of slope vulnerability.
51. The discussion of the HPC revolved around the road-width
that should be adopted for the highways comprising of the Project. Factors
such as the road geometrics, traffic volume, ecological considerations
(such as steep terrain, loss of forest cover, et al) guided the discussion E
of the HPC. At present, the project requirement envisages a DL-PS
standard as given below:

F

Thus, all the highways were to be widened to reflect a width G
between 9 – 12m.
52. A majority consisting of thirteen members of the HPC was of
the opinion that the DL-PS standard must be applied uniformly throughout
the Project for the following reasons:
H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A (i) The IRC Manual recommends a uniform application of design
standards and any adjustments that need to be made to factor
in the variability in slopes, must be intended for short distances;
(ii) The roads of the hills require protective works such as
retaining walls, breast walls, catch drains, et al, which form a
B substantial part of the construction cost. Once the roads have
been constructed, the widening of roads in the future is
expensive, and at times impossible. Thus, the highways must
be widened bearing in mind the traffic volumes for the next
20-25 years;
C (iii) Some of the highways of the Project are important feeder
roads leading towards border areas. The BRO has highlighted
that the terrain in border areas is in a snow bound region and
feeder routes such as Helong-Mana and Barethi-Gangotri must
be double-laned. Further, the roads beyond Joshimath and
Uttarkashi are operationally sensitive and fall within 100 kms
D of the Line of Actual Control. Single-lane roads are closed
during the winter season due to accumulation of snow and
hinder the movement of logistics and medical aid to the Indian
Army;
(iv) The 2019 IRC Guidelines also suggest that strategic border
E roads for military and paramilitary forces be not less than two
lanes with paved shoulders; and
(v) Suitable adjustments can be made to the standard design after
considering vulnerability of slopes, identification of stretches
vulnerable to floods, mapping wildlife corridors and providing
F adequate safeguards.
53. A minority consisting of five members of the HPC, including
the Chairperson, was in favour of adopting the IW standard for the
Project. Their opinion was based on the following reasons:
(i) The type of road must be determined based on traffic surveys,
G
capacity of roads, and ecological considerations. The 2012
MoRTH Circular, however, recommended only an operational
standard;
(ii) The detailed project reports for the Project have based the
choice of road-width on traffic survey data. However, the
H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 547
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

data is insufficient as the traffic volume count of only April- A
May, which is a non-peak period, was taken into account.
Additionally, no traffic surveys were conducted for the Higher
Himalayas, which suggest that the DL-PS standard is
extremely wide;
(iii) The current standard ignores the overall environmental B
considerations such as geological fragility, slope de-stabilization
and recurring landslides, climate change and soil organic carbon
loss. MoRTH has not conducted an EIA for the Project which
would suggest site-specific mitigation measures;
(iv) Although border security concerns are a relevant factor, not C
all routes lead to the international borders. To ensure that
national security concerns are addressed, more disaster-
resilient highways are needed which would not be achieved
by cutting fragile slopes. Further, the Chief of Army Staff on
20 September 2019 had made a statement that the current
roads adequately fulfilled the needs of the Army; and D

(v) The 2018 MoRTH Circular acknowledges that the DL-PS
standard has led to issues in the mountainous terrains and
recommended that road design be based on traffic volume.
The 2018 MoRTH Circular was not brought to the notice of
the members of the HPC during the discussion and was E
received later, after the voting had taken place. It was
circulated by the Chairperson, after which two voting members
and the Chairperson recommended the adoption of the IW
standard in all stretches where widening remains to be done.
54. Since the 2018 MoRTH Circular, which was central to the F
discussion on road-width, was inadequately considered by the HPC, it
was suggested by the Chairperson that a final decision on this issue
must be taken by the Supreme Court. Apart from the issue of road-
width, the majority of members also recommended that:
(i) To avoid the possibility of slope failures, valley side filling must G
be given importance;
(ii) A footpath for walking along the highways of the Project must
be made for the pilgrims; and

H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A (iii) In built-up areas where road side facilities and establishments
exist, the width of the roads should be kept at 10.5m (7m
carriageway and 1.75m paved shoulder on either side).
55. With regard to the BESZ, the HPC noted that the Project has
five unsanctioned projects which run through it. MoRTH plans to upgrade
B 100.5 kms from Uttarkashi to Gangotri to conform to the DL-PS standard.
The following recommendations were made:
(i) BRO, which is the implementing agency, must obtain all
requisite clearances under the relevant notifications of the
MoEF&CC;
C (ii) Road widening activities should only be undertaken after
detailed EIAs and mitigation measures;
(iii) The felling of deodar trees should be avoided;
(iv) Feasibility studies should be conducted in the short tunnels
D proposed within the highways, and
(v) Vulnerability evaluations and terrain assessments must be
conducted.
F.1.2 HPC Report dated 31 December 2020
56. Following the filing of MA No 1925 of 2020 and MA No 2180
E of 2020, this Court by an order dated 2 December 2020 directed the
HPC to consider the issues raised by Professor Ravi Chopra and the
MoD, and submit a detailed report. The HPC Report-II was thereafter
submitted. In relation to MA No 2180 of 2020 filed by the MoD, a majority
of 21 members recommended that further work to be undertaken by the
F MoRTH should be according to the 2020 MoRTH Circular, as it is
necessary for the security of the nation. A minority of three members
was not persuaded that the order of this Court dated 8 September 2020
should be modified. One member recommended that the work on the
national highways from Rishikesh to Gangotri, Rishikesh to Mana, and
Tanakpur to Pithoragarh may be carried out according to the 2020
G MoRTH Circular. However, a flexible approach should be adopted where
necessary, to minimize damage to the forests and wildlife habitats. On
the letters filed by the Chairperson, a majority of members recommended
that the letters be withdrawn.
57. The majority report indicates that:
H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 549
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(i) The concerns raised by the MoD had been deliberated by the A
HPC and the majority view in the HPC Report indicated the
adoption of the DL-PS standard. However, the majority report
was overridden by the views of 4 members;
(ii) The HPC Report discussed the strategic importance of the
three national highways: NH-34 (previously NH-94 +NH-108), B
NH-07 (previously NH-58) and NH-125;
(iii) The District Magistrates of Uttarkashi, Chamoli and
Champawat District expressed concern that the local people
wanted an all-weather reliable road along with the requirement
of the MoD; and C
(iv) The Rapid EIA reports of the Rishikesh-Rudraprayag stretch
indicated that the impact of the Project is 32.25 per cent, which
falls in the medium impact category. Thus, from an EIA
perspective, the widening of the highways should be permitted.
58. The minority of members stated in their report that: D
(i) On the three feeder highways mentioned by the MoD in their
application, 161 landslides/vulnerable zones were created. Due
to the new landslides, the entire project would be counter-
productive for defence-preparedness;
E
(ii) The requirement of the MoD for the feeder roads should be
considered in the context of the need for disaster resilient
roads, capacity of roads to ensure swift movement of Army
vehicles, minimizing environmental and social impact and long-
term feasibility of the roads; and
F
(iii) The difference between the recommendation of the minority
and the MA filed by the MoD is in regard to the reduction of
carriageway by 1.5m, with due regard to the requirement of
a footpath of 1.5m for the local population and pilgrims.
F.1.3 Analysis on the width of road
G
59. Pursuant to the order of this Court of 8 September 2020, the
issue of the width of the national highways that are a part of the Project
has been raised in MA No 2180 of 2020 filed by the MoD, which seeks
modification of the order itself. The grounds listed in the MA indicate
that the national highways from Rishikesh to Mana, Rishikesh to Gangotri
H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A and Tanakpur to Pithoragarh are feeder roads to border areas and are
vital from the perspective of national security. Thus, it has been urged
that development of these highways should be according to the two-lane
configuration.
60. The details of these roads and their proximity to the international
B border has been provided in the MA by the MoD, and is reproduced
below:
‘‘Table A

C

D

E

F

G

H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 551
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A 61. Based on the above description, it is evident that the national
highways provide vital connections to the establishments of the Armed
Forces along the Nelong Axis, Mana Pass, Rimkhim Pass, Niti Pass and
Lipulekh Pass. The importance of the requirement of double-laned
highways has been emphasized as it is necessary for the movement of
trucks, equipment and personnel of the Armed Forces.
B
62. The above table also indicates that the MoD does not seek to
widen only the three national highways which act as feeder roads. Instead,
the roads connecting the national highways from Gangotri, Mana and
Pithoragarh to the Army establishments across the border are also in
various stages of development and attempts have been made to ensure
C double-laned highways as far as possible. The MoD has also highlighted
that these feeder roads from Rishikesh to Gangotri and Joshimath to
Mana were initially included in the Long-Term Roll on Works Plan 2018-
19 to 2022-23 of the BRO. This plan seeks to upgrade the national
highways to double lane specifications to meet the operational
D requirements of the Indian Army. Prior to 2016, these roads were under
the purview of the BRO, which is an arm of the MoD. It is only after
2017 that portions of these roads were handed over to PWD and NHIDCL
for speedier development, given the expansive works to be undertaken
for the Project.
E 63. At the outset, therefore, we find that there are no mala fides
in MA No 2180 of 2020 filed by the MoD. The allegation that the
application filed by the MoD seeks to re-litigate the matter or subvert
the previous order of this Court are unfounded inasmuch as MoD, as the
specialized body of the Government of India, is entitled to decide on the
operational requirements of the Armed Forces. These requirements
F include infrastructural support needed for facilitating the movement of
troops, equipment and machines. The bona fides of the MoD are also
evident from the fact that the issue of security concerns was raised
during the discussions of the HPC and finds mention in the HPC Report.
Thus, the MoD has maintained the need for double-laned roads to meet
G border security concerns.
64. The appellants have referred to a statement made by the
Chief of the Army Staff in 2019 in a media interview regarding the
adequacy of infrastructure for troop movement. We do not find it
necessary to place reliance on a statement made to the media, given the
H consistent stand of the MoD during the deliberations of the HPC and
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 553
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

before this Court. The security concerns as assessed by the MoD may A
change over time. The recent past has thrown up serious challenges to
national security. The Armed Forces cannot be held down to a statement
made during a media interaction in 2019 as if it were a decree writ in
stone. Similarly, the appellants have also raised a challenge to the 2020
MoRTH Circular and have sought a direction that this circular be revoked,
B
on the ground that it recommends the DL-PS standard without application
of mind.
65. This Court, in its exercise of judicial review, cannot second-
guess the infrastructural needs of the Armed Forces. The appellants
would have this Court hold that the need of the Army will be subserved
better by disaster resistant roads of a smaller dimension. The submission C
of the appellants requires the Court to override the modalities decided
upon by the Army and the MoD to safeguard the security of the nation’s
borders (it is important to remember that the MoRTH issued the 2020
MoRTH Circular based upon the recommendations received from the
MoD). The submission of the appellants requires the Court to interrogate D
the policy choice of the establishment which is entrusted by law with the
defence of the nation. This is impermissible.
66. We shall now advert to the position of law regarding the
construction of double-laned roads. The 2012 MoRTH Circular stipulated
that all national highways were to have a carriageway width of two E
lanes. While this circular acknowledged that, generally, the carriageway
width is dictated by the traffic volume, but in an attempt to ensure smooth
flow of traffic, all highways were henceforth to be converted to two
lanes with paved shoulders. Thus, according to the 2012 MoRTH Circular,
all highways were to conform to the DL-PS standard.
F
67. The 2018 MoRTH Circular modified the 2012 version. The
Circular of 2018 stipulated that:
(i) In hills and mountainous terrains, for areas where the PCUs
are in the range of 4,000-8,000 PCUs per day, the carriageway
width cannot be of double lane configuration but has to be of G
intermediate configuration (i.e., 5m); along with this, adequate
passing places with 2.5m width have to be included;
(ii) For areas where the PCUs are more than 10,000 per day (or
expected to reach that level within 3 to 5 years), the
H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A carriageway width could be of double lane configuration (i.e.,
7m); and
(iii) Where the traffic is likely to increase “at about more than”
10 per cent per annum, the width could be of DL-PS
configuration.
B Thus, the 2018 MoRTH Circular did not entirely bar the
construction of double-laned highways in hilly and mountainous terrains.
It only made the DL-PS standard contingent on the current and projected
traffic volume for the road.
68. The 2019 IRC Guidelines, in relation to the width of carriageway
C for national highways, provided that that DL-PS standard should be
adopted. More specifically, the 2019 IRC Guidelines dealt with national
highways in hills and mountainous terrain that serve as strategic roads
and border roads for military and paramilitary operations. It provided
that such roads should be constructed with not less than a two lane
D carriageway with a paved shoulder on the hill side and an earthen shoulder
on the valley side. The relevant clause is reproduced below:
“6.2.2 Width of carriageway, shoulders and roadway for various
categories of roads are given in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Widths of Carriageway, Shoulder and Roadway
E
[…]
Notes:
[…]
6. On roads subject to heavy snow fall, where snow clearance is
F done over long periods, roadway width may be increased by 1.5
m. However, the requirement of such widening may be examined
with reference to ground conditions in each case considering terrain
traffic and other influencing conditions and factors.
[…]
G
8. Strategic and border roads for military/paramilitary/
security forces operations/movements shall be constructed
for not less than two lane carriageway alongwith paved
shoulder on hill side + paved and earthen shoulder on valley
side on same lines of national highway.”
H
(emphasis supplied)
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 555
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

69. Given the lack of clarity on this issue in the MoRTH circulars, A
the 2020 MoRTH Circular was brought in. The Circular of 2020 reiterates
the 2019 IRC Guidelines and states that roads in hilly and mountainous
terrain, which act as feeder roads to the Indo-China border should be of
DL-PS standard, with a 7m carriageway and 1.5m paved shoulder.
70. Neither the 2012 nor the 2018 MoRTH Circulars specifically B
addressed the issue of strategic border roads. The considerations for
development of national highways in plains and in hilly and mountainous
regions are not identical. Similarly, the considerations governing the
construction of highways that are strategic roads from a defence
perspective, and may be used by the Armed Forces of the nation, cannot
be the same as those for other roads in hilly and mountainous regions. C
We must therefore arrive at a delicate balance of environmental
considerations such that they do not impede infrastructural development,
specifically in areas of strategic importance crucial to the security of the
nation.
71. Based on the above analysis, we find that the need for the D
development of national highways of a DL-PS standard is proportionate
to the object of fulfilling the security concerns of the nation as assessed
by the MoD. This is reinforced by the fact that the roads beyond the
highways in the Project, beyond Gangotri, Mana and Pithoragarh are
being developed by the MoD as double laned highways. E
72. Additionally, the current status of works for the three highways
in question is as follows:

F

G

H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A From the above tabulated statement which has been provided by
the MoD, it appears that more than 50 per cent of the hill cutting has
already been completed in each of these national highways, and over 50
per cent of double-laning has been completed on NH-58 and NH-125.
In view of this, partial development of the highway compliant with the
IW standard and the remaining in conformity with the DL-PS standard
B
would not be suitable for the needs of the Armed Forces and will, in fact,
prolong the movement of troops and equipment.
73. We shall now turn to the findings and recommendations of the
HPC regarding the issue of road-width. As reflected by this Court’s
order dated 8 August 2019, the HPC comprised of representatives from
C governmental bodies, including the MoD who could highlight the
requirements of border roads. The broad terms of reference of the HPC
were as follows:
(i) To consider the cumulative and independent impact of the
Project on the entire Himalayan valleys;
D
(ii) To consider whether revision of the full Project (about 900
kms) should at all take place with a view to minimize the
adverse impact of the Project on the environment and social
life;

E (iii) To identify the sites in which work (i.e., hill-cutting) has
started and the stretches in which the work has not yet started.
As far as the sites in which work has started, the HPC was
to recommend the measures which are required for stabilizing
the area where hill-cutting has taken place, including the
environmentally safe disposal of muck which has been
F generated so that it does not adversely affect the flora and
fauna of the catchment area of the river;
(iv) As regards the stretches where work has not started, the
HPC was to review the proposed project and recommend
measures which would minimize the adverse impact on the
G environment and social life; bring the project in conformity
with the steep valley terrain and carrying capacity and avoid
triggering new landslides; and ensuring conservation and
protection of sensitive Himalayan valleys;
(v) To assess environmental degradation in terms of loss of forest
H land, trees, green cover, water resources, dumping of muck
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 557
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

and impacts on the wildlife and direct mitigation measures; A
and
(vi) To asses and quantify the impact on social infrastructure/
public-life due to triggering of fresh landslides, air pollution,
frequent road blocks, et al, and suggest measures for
redressal, including preparation of disaster management plans B
prior to the onset of the monsoon.
74. While the HPC was empowered to assess the environmental
and social impact of the Project, it was not competent to address, assess
or review the security needs of the nation. The work of the HPC was
limited to giving recommendations to improve the Project in terms of its C
environmental impact and to suggest mitigation strategies to implement
the Project. The competing interests that the HPC had to evaluate were
environmental concerns as against infrastructural development, the
primary reason of which in this Project was focused on increasing tourism,
providing an impetus to the economy, and ease of transportation for
undertaking the Char Dham pilgrimage. Balancing the interests of D
defence as against environmental considerations was outside the ambit
of the HPC.
75. Be that as it may, the HPC Report does highlight that certain
highways (NH-94, 108, 58 and 125) form the feeder roads to border
locations in the districts of Uttarkashi, Chamoli and Pithoragarh. An E
extract of the relevant portion of the HPC Report is reproduced below 53:
“Roads beyond Joshimath and Uttarkashi are operationally very
sensitive as they fall within 100 Km of the LAC. The border
terrain lies in high altitude, snow bound regions. Indian Army and
ITBP units maintain continuous vigil on the borders and important F
passes. To ensure better national security, the Government of India
has given impetus for the development of double lane roads
towards the border. Roads beyond Bhaironghati and Mana are
already double-laned but the important feeder roads Helong-Mana
and Barethi-Gangotri are generally single lane (except some G
intermittent stretches which are improved to two lane) with steep
gradients, sharp curves, narrow hairpin bends, avalanche prone
locations and weak bridges which pose major challenges to vehicle
movements in these areas. The single lane roads get closed due
53
HPC Report, pages 82-83 H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A to snow accumulation and hinder the movement of soldiers even
by foot for provisions of logistic and medical aid.”
Bearing the above observations in mind, a majority of the members
of the HPC recommended the adoption of the DL-PS standard as road-
width for the Project. This opinion was reiterated in HPC Report II,
B which considered the MA No 2180 of 2020 filed by the MoD.
76. We find ourselves to be in agreement with this finding of the
HPC. Based on the above reasons, we modify the order of this Court
dated 8 September 2020 to the extent that the national highways from
Rishikesh to Mana, Rishikesh to Gangotri, and Tanakpur to Pithoragarh
C be developed according to the double-lane carriageway width with paved
shoulder standard as provided in the 2020 MoRTH Circular.
77. An ancillary issue regarding the width of the roads of the
Project, apart from the above highways which are strategic feeder roads
to border areas, is regarding the interpretation of the order dated 8
D September 2020. This Court in its order held that:
“We have perused the conclusion and recommendations of the
report, in particular, from pages 90-93 in Part I. We are of the
view that it is correct that the 2018 MORTH circular should
apply for the reasons given at page 93 of the report.
E Consequently, the 2018 circular alone will apply. The other
directions that were issued by us on 08.08.2019 must be strictly
complied with, including the holding of quarterly meetings to ensure
timely and proper compliance of the recommendations.
Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, persisted with his
F arguments that the 2018 circular is only prospective in nature. We
are well aware of the distinction between something which is
retrospective in the sense that it applies for the first time to projects
which are already completed as opposed to ongoing projects,
where it is necessary to take stock of the current situation and
then move forward. Having taken stock of the current situation
G and of the fragility generally of the eco system in mountain terrain,
we are of the view that this argument has no legs to stand on.”
(emphasis supplied)
78. One of the arguments raised by the appellants in their MA
1925 of 2020 is that pursuant to this order, MoRTH has stated that the
H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 559
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

order will only be implemented for the 13 projects which have not been A
sanctioned and where work has not been initiated. In its affidavit dated
15 February 2021, MoRTH has stated:
“3. […] showing the status of road construction work in the
Chardham Pariyojna which would show that in almost every
sanctioned project of the Chardham Pariyojna, hill cutting has been B
carried out at various stretches as the old formation width of 12
mts, leaving unfinished stretches in between. It is submitted that
in a particular sanctioned project, due to operational difficulties,
hill cutting and laying down of a tarred road is often not carried
out simultaneously and/or in linear form. Thus, reducing the width
of the road to 5.5 mts in the those unfinished stretches at this C
stage would cause a serious road safety hazard. The details of
the same is also reproduced hereinbelow:

D

E

F

4. It is further stated that out of the total length of 825 kms of the
Chardham pariyojna, only 151 Kms consist of non-strategic roads, G
whereas the rest of the pariyojna having a length of 674 Kms
have immense strategic importance being feeder roads to the Indo-
china border roads under the control of Ministry of [D]efence.
The details of the same are also reproduced hereinbelow:
H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A

B

C 79. The order of this Court dated 8 September 2020 clarified that
the 2018 MoRTH Circular will hold the field, regardless of whether works
on a highway had been completed or were ongoing. By allowing the MA
filed by the MoD for modification of this order, we have permitted the
widening of the national highways from Rishikesh to Mana, Rishikesh to
Gangotri, and Tanakpur to Pithoragarh, which are strategic feeder roads
D
to border areas. To this extent, the order dated 8 September 2020 will
stand modified. However, we grant liberty to the respondents to pursue
appropriate legal proceedings and seek reliefs in the event that it is
necessary to implement the DL-PS standard for the entire Project.
F.1 Environmental Issues
E
80. While we have permitted the UOI and MoD to apply a
DL-PS configuration to the highways mentioned in MA No 2180 of
2020, it is not the end of this matter. There may have been a disagreement
between the members of the HPC in relation to the road-width issue but
they unanimously agreed on other environmental issues in the manner in
F
which the Project was being implemented by MoRTH. Some of these
issues have also been pointed out by the appellants in MA No 1925 of
2020 and their affidavits thereafter, often based upon news reports in
relation to the Project. We shall first note these issues as flagged by the
HPC, consider their recommendations and based on that, we will issue
G directions to MoRTH and MoD.
F.2.1 HPC Report dated 13 July 2020
81. The environmental and social concerns arising from the Project
have been dealt with in Chapter III-XI of the HPC Report, along with
the recommendations and conclusions in Chapter XII. Apart from Chapter
H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 561
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

II on the issue of road-width as provided in Section F.1.1 above, the A
findings of the HPC on all other issues have been unanimous.
82. Chapter III of the HPC Report deals with hill cutting and
highlights that slope instability is one of the most frequent disasters in
mountains. Hill cutting in the Himalayas is also a major reason for
landslides and rockfalls. During field visits, the HPC observed that there B
were large stretches of hill-cutting with steep slopes and no protection
measures, no slope drainage measures had been taken, the debris was
falling downhill, further destabilizing the slope. The HPC recommended
the following measures which could be adopted to mitigate the damage
and prevent landslides:
C
(i) In many locations, hill-cutting can be avoided by filling material
on the valley side to widen the road;
(ii) Sufficient vulnerability analysis must be conducted before
further hill-cutting and plans for maintenance of slopes must
be made; D
(iii) Roadside drainage measures and protection against toe-
erosion must be undertaken;
(iv) In case of near vertical to vertical cutting, a breast wall may
be erected to avoid landslides; and
E
(v) Damaged gabion structures must be repaired through back-
filling, et al.
83. Chapter IV of the HPC Report concerns the 20 bypasses,
realignments and tunnel projects that have been proposed for some
segments of the national highways as they are geologically unstable or
F
in congested passages. The HPC observed that geological infirmities
and the felling of deodar and oak trees are a critical issue in these bypasses.
It recommended that feasibility studies may be conducted for some of
the bypasses, along with their impact on local area residents.
84. Chapter V of the HPC Reports concerns a critical area of the
Project – muck dumping. Muck-dumping or muck management requires G
safe disposal of the muck generated due to the material excavated,
tunneled, and dislodged. Within the Project, 435 muck-dumping sites have
been identified for the 53 projects. However, the following issues were
identified by the HPC in relation to muck-disposal:
H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A (i) Most of these projects do not have adequate muck dumping
capacity. In 5 out of the 7 packages, the authorized muck
dumping capacity is below the muck volumes anticipated. In
one-third of the projects, the expected generation of muck is
more than the carrying capacity of the sites;
B (ii) Most of the muck dumping sites are located in gorges or
natural drains, along the concave sections of rivers, in or
adjacent to forests, near agricultural fields or habitations which
may not have been authorized;
(iii) There are many large and tall sites, with high slope angles
C but attempts to stabilize them have not been made; and
(iv) There is no financial provision for environmentally safe
disposal of muck and no guidelines have been provided by
MoRTH to the EPC Contractors regarding its proper
management, leading to variations in selection of sites and
D adoption of environmentally safe disposal practices by
contractors, who also dump it on private land on request.
85. For adequate disposal of muck, the HPC recommended the
following measures to be taken:
(i) Muck dumping should generally be located downwind of
E habitation;
(ii) Topsoil should be kept separately in a proper manner for later
use in rehabilitating muck disposal;
(iii) A large quantity of boulders (locally available) should be
checked for their mechanical properties and used
F
appropriately;
(iv) Before muck is dumped at identified locations and construction
of protection measures, it should be ensured that the substratum
has enough shear strength to sustain the load without creating
a slip hazard. The gabion/protection walls should preferably
G be constructed along the contours for better stability and above
the highest flood level at a safe distance;
(v) Muck dumping sites should not be located on the concave
side of river meanders. Gorges and natural drainage also need
to be avoided;
H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 563
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(vi) Plantation of locally available plant species should be preferred A
for rehabilitation of dump sites along with help from local
people and forest department;
(vii) MoRTH and the implementing agencies must immediately
coordinate with district authorities to acquire additional muck
dumping sites and necessary clearances to ensure that muck B
generation equals carrying capacities of muck dumping sites;
(viii)Capacities of sites fully utilized must be stabilized at the earliest,
preferably before the onset of the rainy season;
(ix) Muck which has fallen on roads after landslides must not be
pushed down slope; and C

(x) All natural drains/streams blocked with dumped muck should
be cleared before the monsoons.
87. Chapter VI of the HPC Report deals with the environment
quality of the Project, which can be divided into short-term and long- D
term impacts. Short-term impacts occur due to road construction activities
like land clearing, ground excavation and cut and fill operations, and are
visible in the vicinity of the construction activity. Meanwhile, long-term
impacts include climate warming due to soil organic carbon loss as a
result of road construction and traffic problems. During their field visits,
the HPC were unable to assess the impact of the project on the E
environmental quality due to stoppage of work prior to the visit. However,
it observed dust pollution where debris had not been cleared from the
road. The HPC also identified long-term impacts such as vehicular
pollution, black soot emission, soil erosion from hill-cutting and muck-
dumping and soil organic carbon loss, due to the Project. F
87. On the basis of its observations, the HPC made the following
recommendations:
(i) Reliable data should be obtained to formulate strategies to
control pollution during the construction phase effectively;
(ii) Continuous air quality monitoring stations must be placed at G
each of the Char Dham locations;
(iii) A reduction in diesel and petrol vehicles is warranted in view
of the ecological sensitivity of the Higher Himalayas; and

H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A (iv) Robust stabilization measures are needed in the Lesser
Himalayas and the Shivaliks to conserve their vast forests
and SOC, as they are major carbon sinks.
88. Chapter VII of the HPC Report deals with the loss of forests,
trees and green cover. Cutting of mountain slopes to widen roads leads
B to a reduction in the green cover in the State. A total area of 689.23
hectares has been diverted from forest land for the Project. This loss of
green cover leads to a loss of riverine vegetation, top soil, wildlife habitats,
ecosystem services, et al. To redress the loss of forest cover, the
Uttarakhand Forest Department raised a plantation as part of the
Compensatory Afforestation program. In addition to this, a Draft Action
C Plan focusing on afforestation on degraded waste land and forest land
along the national highways, restoration of muck disposal, soil conservation
works, rejuvenation of existing water resources, and landscaping has
also been proposed. The HPC has also recommended the following
measures to be taken:
D (i) Felling of deodar trees should be avoided;
(ii) Road-width in dense forest patches may be reduced;
(iii) In stretches that are yet to be widened, the top soil must be
separately stored from the remaining muck to facilitate
E regeneration;
(iv) Regeneration of riverine vegetation should be included in the
Draft Action Plan; and
(v) The Net Present Value rates of forests needs to be revised.
89. Chapter VIII of the HPC Report discusses the impact of the
F
Project on wildlife habitats. The Project lies close to the wildlife protected
areas of Gangotri National Park, Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary, Govind
National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and Rajaji National Park. These
protected areas have four highly endangered species – snow leopard,
Tibetan Argali, Eurasian lynx, Himalayan brown bear and Western
G Tragopan. Other threatened species include the Asiatic black bear, Tibetan
wolf, Himalayan musk deer, pheasant and Cheer pheasant. The
Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins also host a wide range of habitats.
90. During the field visits, the HPC observed that improper muck
management resulted in destruction of vegetation cover, which has
H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 565
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

threatened aquatic habitats. Accordingly, it recommended the following A
measures:
(i) Safe wildlife passage should be maintained and included in
road building;
(ii) Gentle slopes shoulders on either side of the road, particularly
around sharp bends/blind curves should be avoided. Box- B
type pre-fabricated culverts could be used by wildlife;
(iii) A comprehensive study of the carrying capacities of the
uppermost stretches of the Project and the wildlife
movement should be conducted;
C
(iv) Opening of Char Dham locations in the winter season should
be considered only after a thorough wildlife impact study;
(v) Road widening work on NH-109, NH-94, NH-94/134 and
NH-07/58, which are located in the eco-sensitive zones,
should be conducted after due approvals; and D
(vi) Deterrent action must be taken against unauthorized muck
dumps and compensatory afforestation should be carried
out.
91. Chapter IX of the HPC Report, titled ‘Managing Mountain
Water Courses’ pertains to the management of springs, streams and E
surface drainage. The HPC observed that there was poor management
of subsurface flows at many locations due to improper structures. In
places where perennial flow of water is there, toe drains had not been
constructed. Further, due to the huge quantity of muck generated because
of the cut and dump method and disposal into water courses, the water
F
has been deemed unfit for human consumption. Accordingly, the HPC
recommended that:
(i) Culvert design should be based on hydrological investigation
in order to avoid under designing or over designing of the
structure;
G
(ii) Immediate action be taken to clear all natural drains/streams
blocked with muck dumping;
(iii) The perennial streams should be managed properly by
constructing adequate structures;
H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A (iv) A diversion drain should be provided above the head of the
hill cut area to safely drain out the water away from the
unstable or landslide prone areas;
(v) Toe drains or catch-drains must be provided on the uphill
side of a road and connected to a culvert or a main drain to
B dispose of the water into a natural valley. Additionally, a
breast wall or a toe wall should be provided to prevent
blockage of toe drains by accumulation of fallen over burden
soil/boulders from the uphill slope; and
(vi) There must be safe disposal of heavy runoff and debris
C through discharge channels/gullies.
92. Chapter X of the HPC Report concerns the disaster
management measures that must be taken to prevent any disasters owing
to the infrastructure activity from the Project. These disasters include
natural hazards such as slope failures, flash floods, avalanches, forest
D fires; engineering hazards when poor quality protection measures are
taken; and mass tourist hazards. The significant disaster in the Project
has been due to the vulnerability of slopes. One of the main reasons for
this occurrence is muck-dumping which results in landslides, toe-erosions
and other consequences. Further, no effort has been made to stabilize
the slopes already cut. Additionally, in a number of locations, such as at
E Badrinath, the carrying capacity (that is the number of biological species
that can survive in a particular environment) has been reached. In view
of this, the HPC recommended the following measures:
(i) A comprehensive study regarding the carrying capacity at
various locations in the Project must be conducted;
F
(ii) Given the large number of tourists, Char Dham Early
Warning System Network, connecting all villages, should
be developed such that timely action can be taken in case
of a disaster;
(iii) A survey of vulnerable muck dumping sites must be
G
undertaken, natural streams must be cleared, slope
protection measures should be taken;
(iv) Climate vulnerability risk assessment must be conducted;
and
H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 567
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(v) Protective measures such as well-constructed breast walls, A
retaining walls, soil nailing, geotextiles sheathing, negative
slopes and half-tunnels in hard rock areas should be
observed.
93. Chapter XI of the HPC Report focusses on socio-cultural
perspectives. During the field visits, the HPC members observed that B
there was broad support for the Project as it would economically benefit
the people of the State. However, some of the issues that have not been
addressed are the lack of footpaths for the traditional padyatra or
pilgrimage, impact on traditional forest conservation methods, loss of
livelihoods due to hill-cutting without adequate safeguards, increase in
threat to lives and agriculture in case of heavy rainfall or cloud burst, C
and damage to schools and infrastructure due to slope failures.
94. Based on these concerns, the HPC, inter alia, recommended
the following:
(i) Project authorities should initiate formal mechanisms to D
facilitate dialogue and receive feedback and grievances from
the local community;
(ii) A comfortable pathway for the pilgrims must be constructed;
and
(iii) Conservation of traditions should be encouraged. E
95. In Chapter XII of the HPC Report, the HPC summarized the
conclusions and recommendations made in each of the preceding
chapters.
F.2.2 Analysis of the Environmental Issues
F
96. The analysis conducted by the HPC in the unanimous segment
of its report is not only comprehensive, but it is based upon empirical and
scientific data. The HPC took time to visit all project sites, and individually
identified a variety of issues with them. While these have been divided
into chapters in the HPC Report (as noted in Section F.2.1), the underlying
themes of all them are evident: G

(i) In many instances, MoRTH has gone ahead with the Project
based on its assertions that the Project is compatible with
environmental guidelines or that its developmental benefits
are proportionate to the harm. However, to reality-test these
H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A assertions, the HPC has recommended that the State carry
out relevant studies to ascertain the true reality (such as
for creation of bypasses, maintenance of environmental
quality, protection of wildlife habitats and disaster
management preparedness);
B (ii) The HPC Report also notes that best-practices are not being
followed in some areas of concern (such as hill cutting or
muck dumping). It has thus recommended best practices
for the MoRTH to implement;
(iii) In other areas of concern, the HPC has noted the harms
C which have already been caused due to the Project, has
recommended remedial measures (such as protection of
wildlife habitats (especially in context of ecologically-
sensitive zones) and maintenance of water resources) and
has also suggested future action to reduce its effects (such
as for hill cutting, muck dumping and protection of forest
D cover);
(iv) For some areas, the HPC has highlighted that constant
monitoring by the MoRTH would be required and necessary
systems should be set up (such as for maintenance of
environmental quality and for disaster management
E preparedness); and
(v) The HPC has also noted the Project’s effect on socio-
cultural communities, and has mandated MoRTH to create
avenues for dialogue through which concerns can be
understood and resolved.
F
97. The verdict of the HPC in its report indicates that the Project
is riddled with environmental issues, which need to be resolved in order
to make it environmentally sustainable. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing
litigation in relation to the road-width issue, these concerns seem to have
taken a back seat. However, that cannot be the case, going forward.
G
98. The Attorney General has informed the Court that MoRTH
and MoD are presently undertaking measures to address the concerns
raised by the HPC, which have been noted in paragraphs 18(iv) and (v)
of our judgment. While we appreciate the measures which have been
initiated, they are limited in scope and have been late in coming. In
H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 569
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

comparison to the issues which have been raised by the HPC in its A
Report, the measures adopted have only begun to scratch the surface.
Indeed, they do not address crucial issues such as muck disposal, which
not only affects the environment directly but also causes issues for wildlife
and availability of water resources. Even the remedial measures in relation
to hill-cutting and landslides have been tardy and limited and, from the
B
submissions, seem to have been limited only to the roads which are the
subject matter of the MoD’s MA No 2180 of 2020, which only concerns
the roads which are of strategic importance to India’s national security.
However, it is important to remember that the Project consists of 53
individual projects, not all of which are such roads. However, that does
not mean that the environmental effect on these roads and their C
surroundings will be any less important and does not need to be remedied.
The State has tried to justify the efficacy of its current measures solely
by noting their benefits directly to the Armed Forces. Indeed, while that
is a crucial factor (as this judgment acknowledges in Section F.1.3), it is
not the only thing at stake in a Project of this scale, which was conceived
D
to provide a more efficient route for those undertaking the Char Dham
pilgrimage. What is at stake in this Project is also the health of the
environment, and its effects on all individuals who inhabit the area.
99. It is thus important that there must be a significant alteration
in the approach to this Project by adopting sustainable measures.
Piecemeal implementation of some mitigation measures for protection E
of the environment, without any concrete strategy in place, cannot pass
muster. While we have granted our approval to the DL-PS configuration
for the roads mentioned in MoD’s MA No 2180 of 2020, it is made
conditional upon MoRTH and MoD implementing the recommendations
made by the HPC, which have been outlined by this Court in Section F
F.2.1. These recommendations are unanimous. A majority of the members
of the HPC comprised of government officials and experts. In line with
the HPC’s recommendations, there has to be an assessment of the nature
of the problem by obtaining actual data through relevant studies for all
individual projects. Specific mitigation measures then should be
implemented for all projects, keeping in mind their unique concerns. In G
doing so, the general recommendations issued by the HPC should form
the baseline, i.e., they should be implemented at the very least, along
with anything over and above that is deemed necessary based on the
studies so conducted.
H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A 100. More than anything else, this requires a concerned shift in
the approach which has been adopted till date. Making the Project
environmentally compliant should not be seen a “checkbox” to be obtained
on the path to development, but rather as the path to sustained
development itself. Thus, the measures adopted have to be well thought
out and should actually address the specific concerns associated with
B
the Project. Understandably, this may make the Project costlier, but that
cannot be a valid justification to not operate within the framework of the
environmental rule of law and sustainable development. In its bid to
make theproject more environmentally conscious, it is also imperative
that the MoRTH and MoD be transparent in the measures they adopt, in
C order for them to be held publicly accountable by spirited citizens. Thus,
we direct that the MoRTH and MoD can proceed with the Project subject
to the condition that it addresses all the concerns which have been raised
by the HPC and enumerated by this Court in Section F.2.1 of this
judgment, through the recommendations mentioned accompanying these
concerns (in paragraphs 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92 and 94 of this
D
judgment).
A Conclusion
101. We thus allow MoD’s MA No 2180 of 2020 by permitting
the DL-PS configuration for the three strategic highways in respect of
E which relief has been claimed. At the same time, we have also taken
note of the environmental concerns which have been raised by the HPC
for the entirety of the Project. We have noted the HPC’s unanimous
recommendations for taking remedial measures and direct that they have
to be implemented by the MoRTH and MoD, going forward. These
specific recommendations have been mentioned in Section F.2.1 and
F are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity.
102. Further, in order to ensure implementation of these
recommendations, we also set up an ‘Oversight Committee’, which shall
report directly to this Court. This Committee shall be chaired by Shri
Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri, former Judge of this Court. In order to enable
G the Chairperson to receive technical assistance, he shall be aided by:
(i) A representative of the National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute (‘NEERI’) to be nominated by the
Director; and

H
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA 571
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(ii) A representative of the Forest Research Institute, Deemed A
to be University, Dehradun to be nominated by its Director
General.
The Oversight Committee shall receive all logistical and
administrative assistance from the UOI, the Government of Uttarakhand,
MoRTH, MoD and MoEF&CC. The Secretary of the Environment and B
Forest Department, Uttarakhand shall ensure that logistical assistance
is provided to the Committee. MoRTH, MoD and MoEF&CC shall also
nominate nodal officers for rendering assistance to the Committee,
providing information and co-operating with the work of the Committee.
The District Magistrates for the Districts forming a part of the Project
shall also provide facilitation and assistance to the Committee. C

103. The objective of this Oversight Committee is not to undertake
an environmental analysis of the Project afresh but to assess the
implementation of the recommendations already provided by the HPC
(which we have noted in Section F.2.1). A formal notification in terms of
these directions shall be issued by the UOI within two weeks. Within D
four weeks thereafter, MoRTH and MoD shall place before the
Committee the steps taken by them to adhere to the HPC’s
recommendations, along with a projected timeline for complying with
the remaining recommendations. Monthly reports of this nature shall be
placed before the Oversight Committee by MoRTH and MoD. The E
Oversight Committee shall then report on the progress undertaken to
this Court every four months. In case of any issues with the
implementation of the recommendations, the Chairperson of the
Committee shall be at liberty to approach this Court. The honorarium for
the Chairperson and members of the Oversight Committee shall be
determined by the Chairperson and the payment shall be disbursed by F
MoRTH.
104. We further note that by the order dated 8 August 2019 of this
Court, the HPC was tasked with overseeing the implementation of its
recommendations and to suggest any further measures which may be
required. To avoid any overlap between the scope of work of the HPC G
and the Oversight Committee formed above in paragraph 102 and 103,
we clarify that the HPC shall continue with its work on overseeing the
implementation of its recommendations for the Project, except for the
national highways from Rishikesh to Mana, Rishikesh to Gangotri, and
Tanakpur to Pithoragarh, which shall now fall under the purview of the H
Oversight Committee.
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.

A 105. With these directions, we allow MoD’s MA No 2180 of 2020,
conditional upon the fulfillment of the conditions outlined above in our
judgment and accordingly, MA No 1925 of 2020 is disposed of.
106. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

B
Devika Gujral Miscellaneous Application disposed of.

C

D

E

F

G

H