The Kerala High Court took up a suo motu matter concerning the proposed ropeway project connecting Pamba to the Sabarimala shrine and passing through the protected forest area of the Periyar Tiger Reserve. The Division Bench composed of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar addressed the project as part of ongoing judicial scrutiny into environmental and heritage concerns, guided by observations from an advocate‑commissioner’s report.
The project, proposed by Eighteenth Step Damodar Cable Car Private Limited in consortium with Damodar Ropeways and Infra Limited, was under detailed examination because of serious safety and ecological implications. The Bench raised concerns about the lack of clarity in submitted sketches, which failed to specify the precise alignment or total length of the ropeway corridor. While indicative plans suggested a 12‑metre wide forest strip would be cleared, and an estimated 97 trees cut, the project proponents had not provided sufficient mapping or justification for this deforestation or its environmental impact.
Court questioned the capacity of the sponsoring entities to implement such a venture responsibly, referencing a fatal accident history and prior blacklisting of one consortium member in Jharkhand. The judges compared the project unfavorably with previous ropeway installations such as in Palani, where no trees were felled, and pointedly remarked that Sabarimala warranted a higher standard of ecological sensitivity and planning.
Observing the spiritual and environmental sensitivity of the Sabarimala pilgrimage zone, the Bench questioned the rationale behind constructing a ropeway in such a terrain, especially when sanitation infrastructure such as toilets remained inadequate for existing pilgrims. The court questioned whether it was realistic or responsible to invite more pilgrims without addressing basic environmental amenities and infrastructural capacity.
Given these deficiencies, the Court directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to file a formal stand on the matter, effectively bringing it into the legal record as a statutory respondent. The court issued notice to the MoEFCC and instructed the Department of Survey‑cum‑Generalist Intelligence (DSGI) of India to coordinate instructions from the Ministry. A further hearing was scheduled after ten days to determine feasibility based on technical, ecological, and constitutional concerns.
The Bench’s remarks underscored broader judicial principles: avoiding mechanized or arbitrary environmental clearances, requiring adequate mapping, demarcation, and environmental impact justification before approving a project of this nature in a tiger reserve. The court’s stance emphasized that neither the affected forest area nor the scale of tree-cutting could be taken lightly, especially when essential protective legislation and Supreme Court directives on preservation of forest ecology apply.
In sum, the Kerala High Court took a strong stance against preliminary or inadequately substantiated planning in a highly sensitive ecological zone. By inviting MoEFCC comment and expressing skepticism over the project’s technical preparedness and institutional competence, the court placed a judicial check on the ropeway proposal and signaled its intent to insist on detailed environmental scrutiny before allowing any clearance to proceed.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.