The Supreme court submitted two different reports to the environment, forest and climate change Ministry.
There is vertical division in the supreme court appointed committee on Char Dham highway project. The issue is related to road width.
The main report was signed by its chairman,environmentalist Ravi Chopra.
While the other four members has favoured “intermediate carriage way of 5.5 metre” citing a road ministry circular of March 2018.
Another report submitted by 16 main members of the Supreme court has recommended road widith of “double lane with paved shoulder” which works out to be 10 meter.
But the final decision will impact at least 150 to kilometre of the 826 km of Char Dham project.
But Chopra in his report has said, “The majority seems to believe that what it decides is final, even if it violates the law, the Supreme Court and causes irreversible and permanent damage to the Himalayas.”
In Supreme court Final report the other 21 members have said that the panels chairman change the manuscript of few chapters, ignoring that this would discussed and approved in earlier meetings. Also he had redrafted a few chapters.
“So much so, the chairman tried to leave the issue pertaining to road width for decision of the Supreme Court whereas the same was finally decided by majority voting. By such an act the chairman tried to drag the whole matter once again to the Supreme Court by defeating the very purpose of constituting the HPC by the SC,” the report said.
But Chopra’s main report has referred to 2018 road ministry circular which had recommended adopting intermediate carriage way of 5.5 meter for hilly terrains. He said that the circular been available before there would have been any voting. But 13 memner of them are still supporting double lane with paved shoulder.
Chopra said the allegation of undermining the majority vote was unfortunate. “If the majority chooses to tread a path which contradicts the court’s directions and TORs and even ignores MoRTH’s own 2018 circular, I believe that the most judicious way is to leave it to the wisdom of the Supreme Court. That is what I have done.”
