Centre tells Supreme Court no new hydel projects should come up in upper Ganga

Three Union Ministries — Jal Shakti, Environment Forest and Climate Change, and Power — filed a joint affidavit before the Supreme Court stating the governme...

What Happened

Three Union Ministries — Jal Shakti, Environment Forest and Climate Change, and Power — filed a joint affidavit before the Supreme Court stating the government does not favour any new hydroelectric projects in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins in Uttarakhand.
The affidavit restricts future hydropower development to seven projects already commissioned or at an advanced stage of financial and physical completion: Tehri Stage-II (1,000 MW), Tapovan Vishnugad (520 MW), Vishnugad Pipalkoti (444 MW), Singoli Bhatwari (99 MW), Phata Byung (76 MW), Madhmaheshwar (15 MW), and Kaliganga-II (4.5 MW).
The Supreme Court had been monitoring hydropower development in the ecologically sensitive upper Ganga basin since 2013, after directing a halt to new environmental and forest clearances pending a cumulative impact assessment.
The government cited ecological fragility, seismic vulnerability, and biodiversity concerns specific to the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi catchments as justification for the position.
The joint affidavit marks a formal government acknowledgment, submitted to the country's highest court, that no further hydropower expansion should occur beyond the seven identified projects.

Static Topic Bridges

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006

The EIA Notification issued on 14 September 2006 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 mandates prior environmental clearance for specified developmental activities. It classifies projects into Category A (national-level appraisal) and Category B (state-level appraisal, further divided into B1 requiring EIA and B2 not requiring EIA).

River Valley Projects — including hydroelectric power projects — are classified as Category A projects, requiring clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change at the national level.
The four-stage process for Category A projects is: Screening → Scoping (by Expert Appraisal Committee, EAC) → Public Hearing → Appraisal and Grant of EC.
The EAC for River Valley and Hydroelectric Projects specifically oversees hydropower proposals under this notification.
Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) is a process mandated by the Supreme Court for river basins with multiple projects to evaluate aggregate ecological damage — the CIA for Alaknanda and Bhagirathi was the trigger for the 2013 Supreme Court order.

Connection to this news: The government's affidavit effectively reinforces what the EIA notification and Supreme Court orders since 2013 have been moving toward — a formal closure on new environmental clearances in the upper Ganga basin, making the moratorium both judicially affirmed and now executively endorsed.

Supreme Court as Environmental Guardian

Article 32 and Article 136 of the Constitution vest the Supreme Court with original and appellate jurisdiction respectively. In the field of environmental law, the Court has used suo motu powers and public interest litigation (PIL) jurisdiction (under Article 32) to issue binding directions to the executive on ecological matters.

The Supreme Court's 2013 direction to halt new clearances in the Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basin arose from PIL proceedings, illustrating how the judiciary acts as an environmental check on executive project approvals.
The Alternate Hydro Energy Centre (AHEC) study commissioned by the Court was found to lack sufficient depth — prompting further scrutiny and the B.K. Chaturvedi Committee's recommendation to conserve several sub-tributaries in pristine form.
An executive affidavit filed in the Supreme Court is legally binding on the government — departing from it would constitute contempt.
The National Green Tribunal (NGT), established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, has concurrent but not appellate jurisdiction over the Supreme Court in environmental matters.

Connection to this news: The joint ministerial affidavit is not a policy document — it is a statement of position before the Supreme Court, with all the legal consequences that entails. This is a higher-order commitment than a Ministry circular or policy note.

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Enacted following the Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 1984, the Environment (Protection) Act (EPA), 1986 is an umbrella legislation empowering the Central Government to take all measures necessary to protect and improve the quality of the environment. The EIA Notification of 2006 draws its statutory authority from Section 3(2)(v) of this Act.

Section 3 grants the Central Government power to restrict industrial activities in ecologically sensitive areas and to set environmental quality standards.
Section 5 enables the Central Government to issue directions for closure, prohibition, or regulation of any industry, operation, or process.
Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) declared under EPA, 1986 around protected areas impose buffer restrictions — large sections of the upper Ganga basin adjoin ESZs of national parks in Uttarakhand.
The National Biodiversity Act, 2002, and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 create additional layers of restriction in areas such as the Gangotri and Nanda Devi national parks that lie within or adjacent to the relevant river catchments.

Connection to this news: The affidavit's ecological justification — fragility, seismicity, biodiversity — directly echoes the legislative intent of EPA, 1986. Any future attempt to revive hydropower proposals in these basins would have to navigate this statutory framework as well as the Supreme Court's ongoing oversight.

Key Facts & Data

Total hydropower proposals in the Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basin before the 2013 moratorium: approximately 69 projects with aggregate capacity of around 9,000 MW.
Implementation of all 69 proposed projects would have affected 81% of the Bhagirathi's flow and 65% of the Alaknanda's flow.
Seven projects permitted to continue: combined installed capacity of approximately 2,158.5 MW.
Supreme Court's initial halt order: 2013, following direction to conduct cumulative impact assessment via the B.K. Chaturvedi Committee.
Legal instrument: joint affidavit by Ministries of Jal Shakti, Environment Forest and Climate Change, and Power.
Legal basis for EIA clearance: EIA Notification, 2006 (under Environment Protection Act, 1986); Category A classification for river valley/hydel projects.
Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) for River Valley and Hydroelectric Projects: the national-level body that appraises such proposals.