Holding

The Union of India had applied its mind to the safety aspects of the Tehri Dam, having considered expert reports and dissenting views, and therefore the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, a public‑interest group, filed a writ under Article 32 seeking to restrain the construction of the Tehri Dam on the ground that the government had not considered seismic safety. The respondents – the Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation – contended that the project had been examined by multiple expert committees, including a High‑Level Committee and an independent seismologist, and that all safety aspects had been duly considered. The Court examined the procedural history, noting that the government had obtained reports from several experts, taken into account a dissenting note by Dr. V.K. Gaur, and finally relied on the report of Prof. Jai Krishna, an internationally recognised seismologist. The Court held that its role is limited to determining whether the government applied its mind, not to substitute its own technical judgment. Since the government had indeed considered the safety issues and acted on expert advice, the petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Union of India applied its mind to the safety aspects of the Tehri Dam project under Article 32.
Whether the court can issue a writ restraining the construction of the dam based on alleged seismic risks.
Whether the dissenting opinion of an expert necessitates further independent expert review before proceeding.
Whether the court can substitute its own technical expertise for that of specialized engineers and seismologists.
Whether the petition is maintainable as a public‑interest litigation under Article 32.

Subjects

Article 32public interest litigationenvironmental lawhydroelectric projectdam safetyseismic riskjudicial reviewexpert committeegovernment mind

Judgment

A TEHRI BANDH VI,RODHI SANGARSH SAMID AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF U.P AND ORS.
·- -
NOVEMBER 7, 1990

B [K.N. SINGH AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-Tehri Dam Construction
of-Safety aspect-Consideration of-Court can only investigate and
adjudicate the question whether the Government applied its mind.
.. __
c PowerEnvironmental Law: Tehri Dam-Construction of-Tehri Hydro
Project-Implementation of-Safety aspect-Consideration of-
Held UOI considered question in various details and relevant aspects.

The petitioners have filed this petition in pnbllc interest under
Article 32 of the Constitution praying that the respondents be res-
D trained from constructing and implementing the Tebri Hydro Power
Project and the Tebri Dam. They allege that in preparing the plan for
Tehri Dam Project the safety aspect]iiis not been taking into considera-
tion; that the dam, if allowed to be constructed, will pose a serious
threat to the life, ecology and the environments of the entire northern
India as the site of the dam is prone to earthquake; and that the Govem-
E ment of India bad not applied its mind to this very important aspect in
preparing the project. The respondents, on the other hand, assert that
the Government of India, through its various departments and
ministries has at every stage considered all relevant data and fully
applied its mind to the safety and various other aspects of the project.

F Dismissing the petition, this Court,

HELD: (1) The Union of India considered the question of safety
of the project in various details more than once. It satisfied itself by
obtaining the reports of experts and also took into consideration the
dissenting view of Dr. V.K. Gaur. The project has been f'malised after
G obtaining the expert report of Prof. Jai Krishna. In the circumstances,
it is not possible to hold that the Union of India has not applied its mind
or has not comiderro the relevant aspects of the safety of the Dam. [613C-D] 1
(2) The questions relating to the design of the dam, the seismic
potential of site where the dam is proposed to be constructed, and the
H various steps which have been taken for ensuring the safety of the dam

606

[.
TEHRI BANDH VIRODHI SAMIT! v. STATE OF U.P. I ,INGH, J.J 607

are highly intricate questions relating to science and engineering. This
A
Court does not possess the requisite expertise to render any rma1
opinion on the rival contentions of the experts. The court can only
Investigate and adjudicate the question as to whether the Government
was conscious to the inherent danger as pointed out by the petitioners
and applied its mind to the safety of the dam. [613E-G]
B
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 12829 of 1985.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflnuia).

Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, P.S. Poti, S.P. Garg,
Ms. Malini Poduval, R. Venkataramani, Harish N. Salve, Mrs.
S. Dikshit, B. Parthasarathi, R.P. Srivastava, R.P. Wadhwani, A.S.
c
Pundir and Ms. Sushma Suri for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

SINGH, J. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of D
India has been filed in public interest by Tehri Bandh Virodhi
Sangarsh Samiti and others. The petitioners have prayed that the
Union of India, State of Uttar Pradesh and the Tehri Hydro Develop-
ment Corporation be restrained from constructing and implementing
the Tehri Hydro Power Project and the Tehri Dam.
E
The main grievance of the petitioners is that in preparing the
plan for the Tehri Dam project the safety aspect has not been taken
into consideration. It is asserted that the dam if allowed to be con-
structed poses a serious threat to the life, ecology and the environ-
ments of the entire northern India as the site of the dam is prone to
earthquake. After this petition was filed a number of persons have F
intervened and the parties have filed affidavits and counter affidavits.
The matter was heard by this Court at various stages. The controversy
relating to the project has not only been debated in this Court but has
also taken a good deal of Parliament's time.

Shri P .S. Poti, learned senior advocate appearing for the peti- G
tioners has argued that the seismic experts in India and abroad are of
the view that past records of earthquake show that the likely length of
fracture along the convergence boundary is of the order of 200-300
kilometer. According to him, it is thus possible that a segment of such
a length along the Hifualayan belt covering the region from approxi-
mately Dehradu;;-on the west and India-Nepal border in the east, H
l

608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
·-
A could be the fracture area of a future large earthquake of magnitude 8
or so. According to him, the Government of India has not applied its
mind to this very important aspect in preparing the project.

Shri V.K. Khanna, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Energy, Depart-
ment of Power, New Delhi has filed an affidavit dated November 5,
a 1990 wherein relevant material has been placed before this Court
showing that the Government of India, through its various depart-
ments and ministries has at every stage considered all relevant data
. and fully applied its mind to the safety and various other aspects of the
A ....
project. '-·
C The project was initially considered by the Environment Apprai-
sal Committee of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the
said Committee, taking into consideration the geological and seismic
setting, the consequence risks and hazards, ecological and social
impacts accompanying the project and the costs and benefits expected,
"ame to the unanimous conclusion that the Tehri Dam Project did not
D merit environmental clearance and should be dropped.

The report submitted by the Environmental Appraisal Commit-
tee was considered and discussed in the meeting of the Committee of
Secretaries held on March 20, 1990. The Committee of Secretaries
came to the conclusion that the Environmental Appraisal Committee
E ought to have concerned itself with the environmental parameters
within which the opinion of the said Committee was relevant. It was
also opined by the Committee of Secretaries that the safety aspect of
the design and earthquake engineering could be best looked into by
the scientific and specialised organisations such as Geological Survey
of India, National Geological Research Institute, Central Water Com- •
;.
F mission and Earthquake Engineering Department of the Roorkee
University. In this context the Committee of Secretaries further
observed that the safety aspect relating the project ought to be resol-
ved and in this regard directed the constitution of a High Level Com- I
mittee of Experts to examine the issue relating to the safety aspects of '
Tehri Dam Project.
G
Pursuant to the decision of the Committee of Secretaries the
Government of India constituted a High Level Committee consisting
of Shri D .P. Dhoundial, Director General, Geological Survey of India
as Chairman, Prof. V.K. Gaur, Secretary, Department of Ocean
Development, Dr. D. Guptasarma, Director, National Geological
H Research Institute, Dr. C.D. Thatte, Member Central Water Commis-
TEHRI BANDH VIRODHI SAMITI v. STATE OF U.P. [SINGH. J.] 609

sion, Prof. L.S. Srivastava, Head Department of Earthquake
A
Engineering, University of Roorkee and Shri S.K. Shrone, Dire~t~r,
Geological Survey of India as members of the said Committee. The
Committee was directed to examine the safety aspect of the project.

The High Level Committee of Experts under the Chairmanship
of Shri D.P. Dhoundial, Director General, Geological Survey of India B
rendered its report on April 6, 1990. The affidavit filed by the Govern-
ment of India stated as under regarding the said report:

"The said Committee considered all safety aspects of the
Tehri Dam and opined with reference to all the issues that
were to be decided upon. The said Committee assumed the
worst scenario of the possible occurrence of a large c
magnitude earthquake in the area and rendered an opinion
to the effect that the design of the Tehri Dam incorporated
adequate defensive measures in accordance with the re-
c0mmendations of the International Congress of Large
Dams on seismic design of dams made from time to time D
and that additional safety measures had been inbuilt to
ensure an adequate and well evolved seismic design for this
high dam."

The affidavit further gave details of the report of the High Level
Committee in the following words: E

"The conclusions culled out from the said report of the
High .Level Committee are set out hereunder for ·the
purpose of convenience:

CONCLUSIONS OF HIGH LEVEL COMMITTEE: F

1. Whether the Earthquake potential of the zone in which
the dam is being located has been fully taken into account
in designing the dam:
,_
(a) Modem researches are being directed" towards G
refining models of seismic potential in seismically
active belts of the world. Different models suggesting

,... probable source potentials in the Himalayan geotec-
tonic setting around Tehri have been examined. In
the absence of any definitive model the worst scena-
rio of a Mag 8+ earthquake has been considered. The H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990) Supp. 2 S.C.R.

probable locale of such earthquake has been consi-
A dered to be at a depth of 15 km below the dam site;

b. The seismic potential at a project site is characteri-
sed by the maximum intensity of ground motion due
to earthquak·! occurrence on the likely seismic
B sources surrounding the site. The effective peak
ground acceleration, considering earthquake events
upto Mag 8+ has been evaluated at the dam site to be
0.22g. •
c. The effective peak ground acceleration for which
the design of the dam has been checked for stability is
c 0.25g. Thus, the seismic potential of the dam site has
been fully taken into account in the design.

II. Whether the proposed dam would be safe as designed
vis-a-vis earthquake potential of the area.
D
a. Cross Section of the proposed dam would be safe
vis-a-vis the maximum earthquake potential as indi-
cated by the estimated effective peak ground accel-
eration (EPA) of0.22g. on the following counts:

E b. The design side slopes are stable with adequate
factor of safety.

c. Settlment likely to occur in the height of dam,
when subjected to an EPA of 0.25g will be within
permissible limits and is taken care of by way of lib-
F eral free board provided in the design.

d. The shell material proposed to be used in the con-
struction of the dam when subjected to an EPA of
0.25g does not show potential for liquefaction.

G III. Whether there would be any threat posed by Reservoir
Induced Seismicity (RIS) to the Dam or Civilian Structures
in the vicinity.

a. Seismicity induced by a large artificial reservoir ... -f-
can only act as a trigger iO initiate a natural earth-
H quake that would have occurred otherwise. There-
I LI IRI llAl'LJH v IROIJHI SAMIH r. STATE OF U.P .. [SINGH, J.J 61 I

/
fore, the presence of a reservoir does not increase the A
size of an earthquake event. ·

b. Since the design is considered safe for the worst
case eathquake no additional consideration for RIS is
necessary.
B
c. Earthquake vulnerability of the existing civil struc-
tures would depend upon the earthquake resistance
built in the same. The construction of the dam would
-· not in any ·way add to the vulnerability of the existing
structures or affect the design requirements for the
future constructions. C

IV. Have all potential dangers arising out of seismicity
been taken note of and adequate precautions taken in plan-
ning all aspects of the Project? If there are any lacunae in
these respects, the same may be elaborated upon and
D
action required in this regard spelt out.

All dangers arising out of seisniicity have been taken
note of and taken care of in the planning of the Tehri
Dam Project.
E
On the basis of the said conclusions the following recom-
mendations were made by the High Level Committee,
which are also set out for the purposes of convenience:

'Recommendations made by High Level Committee'
F
V. Any other matter relating to safety aspects of the Pro-
ject or incidental to the above issue.

a. All other appurtenant structures should be desi-
gned in consistence with the seismic parameters
evaluated by this Committee for the dam site.
G
b. As the construction proceeds, non-linear analysis
should be concluded at the earliest for refining the
construction, details and got vetted by the Govt. of
India "Standing Committee for Seismic Forces" and
by the Central Water Commission. H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A c. Detailing of all engineering defensive measures
and instrumentation in the body of the dam should be
got vetted by the Central Water Commission.

d. An independent standing "Project Review Panel"
incorporating multi-disciplinary specialists of rele-
B vant discipline is recommended to be set up for
review of all designs and plans for the project.

e. The planned expansion of the radio telemetered 4
array of seismic stations around the project area
should be completed at the earliest." -
c The report of the High Level Committee was again considered
by the Committee of Secretaries in its meeting dated April 23, 1990.
The Committee of Secretaries found on a cortsideration of the report
of the High Level Committee that the Tehri Dam as designed was safe
and seismic potential of the site was taken into consideration by the
D experts. Meanwhile Dr. V.K. Gaur, a member of the High Level
Committee of Experts, who had earlier agreed with the unanimous
report, later on sent a note of dissent on May 12, 1990 wherein he
questioned the conclusion of the High Level Committee of Experts in
respect of the safety aspects of the project.

E In the light of the letter of dissent sent by Dr. Gaur the Govern-
ment of India decided to revive the High Level Committee of Experts
and referred the points raised by Dr. Gaur for further consideration of
the Committee. The High Level Committee thereafter on July 20,
1990 rendered a supplementary report endorsing its earlier views
rendere-a unanimously on April 6, 1990. This endorsement, however,
F was a majority view since Dr. V.K. Gaur this time issued a note of
dissent stating that the opinion of the High Level Expert Committee
was based on questionable grounds and formulations and that because
of his dissent the entire matter ought to be rderred to an independent
seismological expert of international repute.

G The Committee of the Secretaries met again on August 10; 1990
and considered the recommendations of the High Level Com~ittee
along with the dissent of Dr. V .K. Gaur and in the circumstances
requested the Department of Mines of refer the matter to an indepen-
dent expert seismologist whose opinion should be taken as final.
Pursuant to the said decision Prof. Jai Krishna a renowed expert of
H international repute examined the report of the High Level Committee
TEHRJ BANDH VIRODHJ SAMITl v. STATE OF U.P. [SINGH, J.[ 613

dated April 6, .!990, July 20, 1990 and also the dissenting note of Dr.
A
V.K. Gaur. Prof. Jai Krishna submitted its report to the Department
of Mines, Government of India on Septemper 8, 1990 wherein he
concurred with the conclusions arrived at by the High Level Commit-
tee of Experts. He did not agree with the view expressed by Dr. V.K.
Gaur in his dissenting note. Prof. Jai Krishna confirmed that tl~e
recommendations of the High Level Committee of Experts were in B
accord with international experience and practice. He also opined that
the design of the Tehri Dam as suggested by Indian and Russian
_, experts was quite safe against the strongest expected earthquake in the
region.

The aforesaid facts clearly show that the Union of India con-
sidered the question of safety of the project in various details more c
than once. It satisfied itself by obtaining the reports of experts and also
took into consideration the dissenting view of Dr. V.K. Gaur. The
project has been finalised after obtaining the expert report of Prof. Jai
Krishna. In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the Union
of India has not applied its mind or has not considered the relevant D
aspects of safety of the Dam.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that the report
submitted by Prof. Jai Krishna should not have been relied upon,
instead the matter should have been referred to a seismologist and that
the safety of the dam is still in danger. In this connection he referred to E
the opinion given by Prof. James N. Brune to Dr. V.K. Kaur as well as
to his dissenting opinion. The questions relating to the design of the
dam, the seismic potential of site where the dam is proposed to be
constructed and the various steps which have been taken for ensuring
the safety of the dam are a highly intricate question relating to science
and engineering. This Court does not possess the requisite expertise to F
render any final opinion on the rival contentions of the experts. In our
opinion the Court can only investigate and adjudicate the question as
to whether the Government was conscious to the inherent danger as
pointed out by the petitioners and applied its mind to the safety of the
dam. We have already given facts in detail which show that the
Government has considered the question on several occasions in the G
light of the opinions expressed by the experts. The Government was
satisfied with the report of the experts and only thereafter clearance
bas been given to foe project. The petitioners contend that project has
not as yet been cleared.

Mr. N.D. Jayal appearing for the !ntervenor-INTACH also H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A referred to the various technical aspects of the matter and urged that
the safety of the dam is still in danger having regard to the seismologi-
cal aspects of the area where the. dam is to be constructed. We need
not disscuss this matter any further, as in our opinion, the Government
has already fully considered every aspect of the project including its
B safety.

We appreciate the petitioners concern for the safety of the pro-
ject which is of prime importance to the general public, however, in
view of the. material on the record we do not find any good reason to
issue a direction restraining the respondents from proceeding ahead
with the implementation of the project. The petition, therefore, fails
C and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

R.S.S. Petition dismissed.·