DDMA had warned of July 7 debris slip in Wayanad, amicus curiae tells Kerala High Court
The July 7 debris slip in Wayanad that claimed eight lives had been foreseen, and the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) had warned the executing
The July 7 debris slip in Wayanad that claimed eight lives had been foreseen, and the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) had warned the executing agencies about the accumulation of nearly one lakh cubic metres of excavated earth that ultimately caved in, the amicus curiae has informed the Kerala High Court. The High Court had initiated suo motu action and appointed Advocate Renjith Thampan as amicus curiae, following the Mundakkai–Chooralmala landslides of 30 July, 2024, to evolve a holistic approach to prevent and manage natural disasters in Kerala. In its report, the amicus curiae says that the DDMA had also directed that the excavated earth near the twin tube tunnel road project site be removed, to avert a disaster.
But the executing agencies did not heed this. Legal mandate It also refers to a decision taken on June 3 by the executive committee of the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority (KSDMA), that neither the KSDMA nor the DDMA had any legal mandate to oversee projects that had already obtained environmental clearance. The decision proceeds on a fundamental misconception of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and is contrary to the binding declaration of law by a Division Bench of the High Court on the overriding effect of the Act, and is thus illegal. Moreover, disaster management authorities have a statutory obligation under the Act to assess and mitigate risks that arise from development projects, irrespective of their environmental clearance.
The report specifically mentions the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change granting environmental clearance in June 2025 for the tunnel project, while imposing 60 conditions relating to muck disposal, worker safety, landslide monitoring, and coordination with disaster management authorities. Statutory powers The amicus curiae further states that the DDMA possessed clear statutory powers under Sections 30, 33 and 34 of the Act to examine construction activities, issue preventive directions, and ensure compliance, wherever disaster risks are identified. The June 3 decision of the KSDMA’s executive committee effectively disabled the sole statutory authority that had been actively warning of hazards like landslides, the report says. The report states that the State government, especially the Public Works department (PWD), cannot shrug off the responsibility of environmental clearance conditions.
A high-level site inspection on June 26 had found that the huge pile of excavated soil posed a risk of soil piping and slope instability, the retaining wall and tarpaulin cover provided by the contractor were inadequate against water seepage, the height of the dump should be reduced, and that families residing near the Meenakshi bridge should be moved to safety in the event of heavy rain, it adds. The report suggests a safety audit, stabilisation and removal of the muck, among others, as short-term recommendations.
The BriefWire