Chardham Project, Environmental Concerns vs BRO’s Stand

The Chardham road project, particularly the Gangotri-Dharasu route, is embroiled in a contentious dispute over environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and clearances. The Border Roads Organisation (BRO) recently asserted that the project does not necessitate an EIA or environmental clearance (EC), a stance that diverges from the recommendations of a Supreme Court-appointed high-powered committee.

The Gangotri-Dharasu route, located within the Bhagirathi Eco-Sensitive Zone (BESZ), is critical for the Chardham project, which aims to enhance road connectivity in the Himalayan region. The BESZ, a 4,157 sq km area designated in 2012 to safeguard the ecology of the River Ganga, imposes stringent environmental protection measures. In a 2020 report, the high-powered committee had emphasised that any road widening within this zone should be preceded by a comprehensive EIA and appropriate mitigation strategies. However, the BRO contends that the rapid EIA conducted for the entire Chardham project—comprising 53 stretches—suffices for environmental scrutiny. According to the BRO’s letter dated August 19, the rapid EIA, approved by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, negates the need for further detailed studies or an EC for the specific Netala bypass segment on the Gangotri-Dharasu route.

This position has sparked friction with both the Uttarakhand forest department and the Environment Ministry. The forest department had previously questioned the need for an EC for the proposed bypass, leading the BRO to argue that the rapid EIA should be deemed adequate. This argument has been forwarded to the Environment Ministry’s regional empowered committee as part of the forest diversion application. Retired Justice, who leads the high-powered committee and the Supreme Court’s oversight panel for environmental safeguards, has indicated that no formal proposal for road widening in the BESZ has been received. He has pledged to seek further information on the matter. Independent members of the BESZ monitoring committee have also expressed concerns, advocating for a rigorous EIA as mandated by the 2012 BESZ notification.

The ongoing dispute underscores the tension between infrastructural development and environmental conservation in ecologically sensitive regions. As the BRO advances its projects amid growing scrutiny, the resolution of this conflict remains pivotal for balancing developmental needs with environmental stewardship.