Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
No-go fragile coastal areas in Galathea Bay of the Great Nicobar Island (GNI) must be excluded from the proposed mega infrastructure project as the law does not allow activities there, counsel for the appellant challenging clearances of the Rs 81,000 crore project told the National Green Tribunal (NGT) during a hearing on Wednesday.
The appellant’s counsel also submitted that the Union Environment Ministry followed a ‘truncated’ terms of reference while revisiting the project’s environmental clearance, as directed in an April 2023 order of the NGT. The appellant’s counsel argued that the pleas filed before the NGT were on the issue of legal permissibility rather than on defence interest or economic viability of the project. It was argued that the project’s port and township components are in fact commercial in nature.
A six-member bench of the NGT, chaired by chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava, commenced fresh hearings on two key pending petitions against the project, on alleged violation of ICRZ 2019 notification, and another one seeking directions to revisit environmental clearance for the project. While hearings on these petitions had begun in 2024, fresh hearings commenced Wednesday as the six-member bench had to be reconstituted due to the completion of the tenure of two judicial members.
The petitions have been filed by environmentalist Ashish Kothari. Arguing for the petitioner, advocate A Yogeshwaran said that parts of the mega project fall in Island Coastal Regulation Zone-1A (ICRZ-1A) areas, where no activity, especially ports, are permitted.
As per the project proposal, a total of 7.07 sq km of the project fell under ICRZ-1A. The port component covers 0.57 sq km, reclamation area of the port contains 0.06 sq km, the airport contains 0.60 sq km, the township for defence is spread over 0.81 sq km and the township is over 5.03 sq km of ICRZ-1A areas. Justice Shrivastava said to the Centre’s counsel that they would have to explain how the 7.07 sq km (project area) would be excluded.
The GNI project involves construction of an international container transshipment terminal, a township and area development, a 450 MVA gas and solar-based power plant, and a dual use civilian and military airport. The project will be spread over 166 sq km.
Advocate A Yogeshwaran cited scientific bodies such as the Zoological Survey of India, Wildlife Institute of India as well Environment Ministry, and submitted to the bench that the Galathea Bay, where the GNI’s transshipment port is proposed, was one of the most important nesting grounds of the leatherback turtle.
“The port can be set up in any of the other bay’s, it need not be in Galathea Bay… You can still have the township and port in another bay, these are all possibilities if you look at options,” Yogeshwaran said, adding, “Today, I am not saying sacrifice national security in the interest of turtles, both can happen.”
The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the NGT itself had recorded in an April 2023 order that parts of the project fall in ICRZ-1A.
Kothari had earlier challenged the environmental clearance before the NGT. In its order on the plea issued in April 2023, the NGT did not interfere with the environmental clearance. However, it found “unanswered deficiencies” on environmental issues raised in the plea and formed a high-powered committee (HPC), chaired by Secretary, Environment Ministry, to revisit the clearance.
On NGT’s order, the HPC looked at issues of impact on corals, the extent of project components in prohibited ICRZ areas and collection of baseline data for environmental impact assessment.
However, thus terms of reference, advocate A Yogeshwaran argued, was illegal and truncated. He said the 2023 NGT order had only cited issues of corals, ICRZ-1A as some of the examples of “unanswered deficiencies”. The advocate contested the HPC’s secretive functioning, as well its findings which suggested translocation of coral colonies, and found that no part of the project fell in prohibited coastal areas.
Yogeshwaran argued that the ICRZ notification did not permit translocation of corals, except for regeneration only. He went on to argue that the environmental clearance for the project was based on a rapid environment impact assessment (EIA), and pleaded that the NGT should direct a comprehensive EIA.
The appellant’s counsel also critiqued that in the face of scientific evidence on ICRZ areas and wildlife presence, the Centre had argued on grounds of ‘defence and strategic importance’ of the project. “Only the airport is dual purpose for civilian and military use while the township and port are commercial.
The Additional Solicitor General will argue on the next hearing on October 29.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
