Monday, 26 September 2022 12:51 PM

Background:
• This case is that of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL),
concerning the seismic and ecological safety of the
construction and implementation of the Tehri Hydro Power
Project and Dam. It is a quintessential case of supposed lack
of due diligence on the part of the government both in terms
of possible damage to the environment and in the safety of
this project against earthquakes given its seismically prone
location.

Facts:
• Petition filed under article 32 of the constitution of india
• Filed for public interest purpose by Tehri Bandh Virodhi
Sangarsh Samiti and others
• It has been filed against the construction and
implementation of Tehri Hydro projection and construction
of the tehri dam
• The petitioners claims that the safety aspect hasn’t been
taken into consideration
• They assert that if the dam is constructed then it is a serious
threat to life, ecology and the environment of the entire
northern india as the site is prone to earthquake
• It has been shown that the the project was considered by
Environmental Appraisal Committee of Environment and
forests, committee of secretaries, high level committee
comprising experts of scientific and specialized
organizations and also by a renowned expert of
international repute.
• Thus the UOI considered the question of safety of the
project from various details more than pnce and on being
satisfied with the reports of the experts gave clearance to
the project.
• it was argued by the petitioner's advocate that the seismic
experts in india and abroad are of view that past records of
earthquake show that the likely length of fracture along the
convergence boundary is of order of 200-300 km and this
was not applied its mind to this very important aspect in
preparing the project.
• The project was first considered by the environmental
appraisal committee of the ministry of environment and
forests and the said committee, taking into consideration the
 convergence boundary is of order of 200-300 km and this
was not applied its mind to this very important aspect in
preparing the project.
• The project was first considered by the environmental
appraisal committee of the ministry of environment and
forests and the said committee, taking into consideration the
geological and seismic setting and the consequences and
risks.
• A high level committee was also set up 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 Research Institute, Dr C.D. Thatte,
Member, Central Water Commission, Prof. L.S. Srivastava,
Head, Department of Earthquake Engineering, University of
Roorkee and Shri S.K. Shrone, Director, Geological Survey
of India as members of the said Committee. The Committee
looked into all the necessary safety aspect while also
considering the worst case scenarios

High level committee report:

After looking into the all the safety aspects of the project and the
possible external factors which could harm or affect the project,
the committee concluded 5 things.

I. Whether the earthquake potential of the zone within which

the project is located has been considered and cautioned
against?

a) Modern research is focused on improving models of seismic

potential in seismically active regions of the globe. Various
models predicting possible source potentials in the
Himalayan geotectonic context surrounding Tehri have
been analysed. In the lack of a comprehensive model, the
worst-case scenario of an earthquake of magnitude 8 or
greater has been examined. The probable location of such
an earthquake has been estimated to be 15 kilometres
beneath the dam.

b) The seismic potential at a project site is characterised by

the greatest intensity of ground motion resulting from
earthquakes occurring on the probable seismic sources
surrounding the site. At the dam site, 0.22g has been
determined to be the effective peak ground acceleration for
earthquakes of magnitude 8 or more.

c) The effective maximum ground acceleration for which the

stability of the dam's design has been verified is 0.25g.
Thus, the seismic potential of the dam site has been
accounted for in its entirety during the design process.
 earthquakes of magnitude 8 or more.

c) The effective maximum ground acceleration for which the

stability of the dam's design has been verified is 0.25g.
Thus, the seismic potential of the dam site has been
accounted for in its entirety during the design process.

II. Whether the proposed construction would be safe against

the earthquake potential?
a) Cross-section of the proposed dam would be safe vis-a-vis the
maximum earthquake potential as indicated by the estimated
effective peak ground acceleration (EPA) of 0.22g on the fol
lowing counts:
b) The design side slopes are stable with adequate factor of
safety.
c) Settlement 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 liberal free board provided in the
design.
d) The shell material proposed to be used in the construction of
the dam when subjected to an EPA of 0.25g does not show
potential for liquefaction.

III. Whether there would be any threat posed by Reservoir

Induced Seismicity (RIS) to the dam or civilian structures in
the vicinity.

a) Seismicity created by a huge artificial reservoir can only

serve as a trigger for a natural earthquake that otherwise
would have occurred. Consequently, the presence of a
reservoir has no effect on the magnitude of an earthquake.

b) Since the design is deemed safe for the worst-case scenario

earthquake, no more RIS consideration is required.

c) The vulnerability of existing civil structures to earthquakes

would rely on the earthquake resistance included into those
buildings. The construction of the dam would have no effect
on the vulnerability of the existing structures or the design
specifications for future constructions.

IV. Whether all potential dangers arising out of seismicity been

taken note of and adequate precautions taken in planning all
aspects of the project? If there are any lacunae in these
respects, the same may be elaborated upon and action
required in this regard spelt out.

All dangers arising out of seismicity have been taken note

of and taken care of in the planning of the Tehri Dam
Project.
 required in this regard spelt out.

All dangers arising out of seismicity have been taken note

of and taken care of in the planning of the Tehri Dam
Project.

V. On the basis of the conclusions aforementioned, the

committee gave the following recommendations -
a) All additional accessory structures must be developed in
accordance with the seismic parameters assessed by this
Committee for the dam site.

b) As the construction progresses, the non-linear analysis for

refining the building details must be completed as soon as
possible and approved by the Government of India's
"Standing Committee for Seismic Forces" and the Central
Water Commission.

C) The Central Water Commission shall review the specifics of

all engineering defensive measures and instrumentation
within the dam's body.

d) It is recommended that an impartial, permanent "Project

Review Panel" comprised of multi-disciplinary
professionals in relevant disciplines be established to
review all designs and plans for the project.

e) The expansion of the radio telemetered array of seismic

stations surrounding the project area must be completed
as soon as possible."

Issue:
Whether the government did sufficient inquiry into the
safety aspect of the construction of the dam?
Was the project structurally viable given the heightened
seismic activity in the area, especially due to its reservoir
like nature?

Note this is not an issue of court, it is a contention made by

the petitioner:
Whether the reports of the various forums, commission and
individuals referred to and set up by the government, hold
valid?

Judgement:

• The court determined that problems about the design of

Whether the reports of the various forums, commission and
individuals referred to and set up by the government, hold
valid?

Judgement:

• The court determined that problems about the design of

the dam, the seismic potential of the site where the dam is
proposed to be constructed, and the different actions taken
to ensure the dam's safety are very complex scientific and
engineering questions. The Court stated that it lacks the
necessary competence to reach a conclusive conclusion on
the experts' competing arguments. The court can only
investigate and rule on the question of whether the
government was aware of the inherent danger raised by the
petitioners and took the dam's safety into account. The facts
provided demonstrate that the government has examined the
issue on multiple times in light of the opinions stated by the
experts. After the government was happy with the findings
of the experts, approval was granted for the project.
Petitioners assert that the project has not yet been approved.
According to the court, every aspect of the project,
including its safety, has already been thoroughly reviewed. •
The court acknowledged the petitioners' concern for the
safety of the project, which is of paramount importance to
the general public. However, based on the evidence in the
record, we see no basis to impose an injunction prohibiting
the respondents from implementing the project. Therefore,
the petition is denied, and it is dismissed with no order as to
costs.