Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. According to the learned Attorney General appropriate steps have been taken. He has produced the Statement dated 11.1.2018 made by Mr. Gulshan Raj, the Chairman of the Supervisory Committee/Chief Engineer, Dam Safety Organisation, Central Water Commission, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Government of India. The Statement reads as follows:- “As per the summary conclusion of the Empowered Committee, contained in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement of 2014 on Mulla Periyar Dam (MPD), the MPD is hydrologically, structurally and seismically safe. No new development has taken place and reported upon since 2014 after the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case. The Supervisory Committee has not noticed any distress in the MPD.”
12. The heart of the matter is whether adequate measures have been taken with regard to safety of the dam. As we perceive from the aforesaid paragraphs from the reported decision, appropriate steps have already been provided by the larger Bench while dealing with the suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. We have also studiedly perused the statement of the Chairman of the Supervisory Committee. At this stage, Mr. George, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the stand with regard to the disaster management, has commended us to Section 2(e) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for brevity, “the 2005 Act”). Learned counsel would highlight that it is obligatory that safety of the dam or the life span of the dam is different than the disaster management to meet unforeseen, sudden and emergent situation. In this regard, he has assiduously emphasised on the concept of corrosion of mental state due to constant fear in the minds of the people who reside downstream area or areas in proximity of the dam.
13. To appreciate the said submission, we may refer to Section 2(d) of the 2005 Act. It is as follows:- “2(d) “disaster” means a catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave occurrence in any area, arising from natural or man made causes, or by accident or negligence which results in substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage to, and destruction of, property, or damage to, or degradation of, environment, and is of such a nature or magnitude as to be beyond the coping capacity of the community of the affected area;”
14. Section 2(e), which is the dictionary clause defines “Disaster Management”. The same is as follows:- “2(e) “disaster management” means a continuous and integrated process of planning, organising, coordinating and implementing measures which are necessary or expedient for— (i) prevention of danger or threat of any disaster; (ii) mitigation or reduction of risk of any disaster or its severity or consequences; RUSSEL JOY v. UNION OF INDIA [DIPAK MISRA, CJI] (iii) capacity-building; (iv) preparedness to deal with any disaster; (v) prompt response to any threatening disaster situation or disaster; (vi) assessing the severity or magnitude of effects of any disaster; (vii) evacuation, rescue and relief; (viii) rehabilitation and reconstruction;”
15. We may also note with profit the language employed in Section 11 that deals with “National Plan”. It is useful to reproduce sub-section (3) of the said Section, which is as follows:- “11. National Plan.- (3) The National Plan shall include— (a) measures to be taken for the prevention of disasters, or the mitigation of their effects; (b) measures to be taken for the integration of mitigation measures in the development plans; (c) measures to be taken for preparedness and capacity building to effectively respond to any threatening disaster situations or disaster; (d) roles and responsibilities of different Ministries or Departments of the Government of India in respect of measures specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c).”
16. Section 23 deals with “State Plan” and sub-section (4) of the same is as under:- “23. State Plan.- (4) The State Plan shall include,— (a) the vulnerability of different parts of the State to different forms of disasters; (b) the measures to be adopted for prevention and mitigation of disasters; (c) the manner in which the mitigation measures shall be integrated with the development plans and projects; (d) the capacity-building and preparedness measures to be taken; (e) the roles and responsibilities of each Department of the Government of the State in relation to the measures specified in clauses (b), (c) and (d) above; (f) the roles and responsibilities of different Departments of the Government of the State in responding to any threatening disaster situation or disaster.”
17. Similarly, Section 31 deals with “District Plan” and sub-section (3) of the same is as under:- “(3) The District Plan shall include- (a) the areas in the district vulnerable to different forms of disasters; (b) the measures to be taken, for prevention and mitigation of disaster, by the Departments of the Government at the district level and local authorities in the district; (c) the capacity-building and preparedness measures required to be taken by the Departments of the Government at the district level and the local authorities in the district to respond to any threatening disaster situation or disaster; (d) the response plans and procedures, in the event of a disaster, providing for- (i) allocation of responsibilities to the Departments of the Government at the district level and the local authorities in the district; (ii) prompt response to disaster and relief thereof; (iii) procurement of essential resources; (iv) establishment of communication links; and (v) the dissemination of information to the public; (e) such other matters as may be required by the State Authority.”
18. On a perusal of the scheme of the 2005 Act, we find that there has to be an appropriate disaster management plan at different levels. RUSSEL JOY v. UNION OF INDIA [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
19. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India would submit that the Central Government is determined to ensure the safety of the dams across the country including the subject dam and also implement the provisions of the 2005 Act with utmost despatch in letter and spirit.
20. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned AAG for the State of Tamil Nadu has drawn our attention to paragraph 205 of State of Tamil Nadu (supra). The said paragraph reads thus:- “205. Moreover, this Court appointed EC to assure itself about the safety of the Mullaperiyar dam. The EC, we must say, has completed its task admirably by thoroughly going into each and every aspect of the safety of Mullaperiyar dam. We do not find any merit in the objections of Kerala challenging the findings and conclusions of the EC on hydrologic safety, structural safety and seismic safety of the dam. The findings of EC with elaborate analysis of reports of investigations, tests and studies lead to one and only one conclusion that there is no change in the circumstances necessitating departure from the earlier finding on the safety of Mullaperiyar dam given by this Court in 2006 judgment. As a matter of fact, there is no change in circumstances at all much less any drastic change in circumstances or emergent situation justifying the reopening of safety aspect of Mullaperiyar dam which has been determined by this Court in the earlier judgment.”
21. Mr. Mohan V. Katarke, learned counsel for the State of Kerala would contend that in the said suit, the Court was only concerned with the increasing of water level of the Mullaperiyar Dam.
22. As far as the safety measures of the Mullaperiyar Dam are concerned, the directions given in State of Tamil Nadu (supra) shall be binding on all. However, there has to be a greater degree of disaster management and better preparedness to face any kind of disaster caused by the dam. Therefore, the concern that has been pronouncedly propounded by Mr. George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, cannot be brushed aside. It is to be borne in mind that life without basic needs of life and liberty replete with fear, is like a concept without structure, a house without a plinth, a metaphor not conveying an idea, a sea without waves or, for that matter, an idea constantly remaining in the realm of speculation. Life and liberty are to be understood, projected and protected in concrete terms. It is because fear brings numbness to passion of purpose and converts an active individual a quitter who resigns himself to fate. History records with sorrow and agony how civilisations have perished mostly due to fear. Citizenry growth stands still, for culture and creativity take the back seat when fear reigns. Some may say that there is no fear but the man who is so told, may appear to be consoled though his heart or mind may not be convinced. Therefore, it is the duty of the States involved to create a sense of confidence in the real sense of the term and ensure that adequate measures have been taken so that in any event safety of the individuals shall not be affected and well preserved and their life and liberty remain protected. To speak differently, steps taken should reflect convincing and concrete perceptibility and not merely a consolatory shadow.
23. In view of the aforesaid, we think it appropriate to issue the following directions:- (i) The Central Government shall constitute a separate Sub- Committee under Section 9 of the 2005 Act, to exclusively monitor the measures for ensuring a high level of preparedness to face any disaster, which is unpredictable in relation to Mullaperiyar Dam. (ii) The State of Kerala as well as the State of Tamil Nadu shall also constitute separate Sub-Committees under Section 21 of the 2005 Act, to exclusively monitor the measures for ensuring a high level of preparedness to face any disaster occurring from Mullaperiyar Dam. They must provide for a separate dispensation under the State plan as envisaged under Section 23(4) of the 2005 Act. (iii) The State of Tamil Nadu, which has been directed to cooperate as per the decision in State of Tamil Nadu (supra), shall also have a Sub-Committee for disaster management and with a specific plan. (iv) Constitution of all sub-committees shall be in addition to the existing Committees. All the States shall work in harmony with the Central Sub-Committee and ensure high level preparedness to face any disaster occurring due to Mullaperiyar Dam, so that life and property are not damaged. RUSSEL JOY v. UNION OF INDIA [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
24. Our directions for constitution of exclusive Sub-Committees for the disaster management for the Mullaperiyar Dam does not anyway remotely suggest that there is any doubt about the safety or life span of the dam, as is alleged in the writ petition. We have said so only keeping in view the consequences of unpredictable disaster, which have astutely been canvassed before us.
25. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Nidhi Jain Writ Petition disposed of.