Mullaperiyar dam: Centre yet to wake from slumber, says SC

The Supreme Court of India expressed shock and disappointment at the Centre's failure to implement the Dam Safety Act, enacted in 2021.

IMAGE: A view of the Mullaperiyar Dam in Kerala.Photograph: ANI Photo

The court highlighted the lack of progress in constituting a national committee for dam safety and formulating regulations despite the law's provisions.

The case pertains to the safety of the Mullaperiyar Dam, a 130-year-old structure in Kerala, which is controlled by Tamil Nadu.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan made the remarks after the Kerala government said the Centre enacted the Dam Safety Act in 2021 to stonewall proceedings, which were going on in court for the safety of the dam and since then nothing has been done.

When the bench was informed the Centre was yet to constitute a national committee for the dam's safety prescribed under the law, it said, "We are aghast to know that despite the enactment of the Dam Safety Act by Parliament, the executive is yet to wake up from slumber."

Senior advocate V Krishnamurthy, appearing for Tamil Nadu, said under the law, the Centre created a dam safety authority and an audit of the structure would be done.

Petitioner Mathews J Nedumpara has sought review of apex court's orders over the safety of the dam on the ground that if water damages the dam, it would affect 50 to 60 lakh people living downstream.

The top court issued a notice seeking the Centre's response and the assistance of the attorney general in the matter.

The bench observed under Section 5(2) of the Dam Safety Act, a national committee comprising members prescribed under Section 5(1) was required to be constituted within a period of 60 days from the date of the law's commencement, and it was required to be reconstituted every three years thereafter.

"We are informed that no such national committee has been constituted so far. Even the rules/regulations regarding the constitution, composition, or functions of the said national committee have not been formulated," said the bench's order.

The court noted Tamil Nadu government's submission to the Centre creating a new supervisory committee led by the chairperson of the national dam safety authority by an office memorandum of November 21, 2024, in supersession of the supervisory committee constituted by the top court in 2014.

"It further appears there is no provision in the Dam Safety Act prescribing the constitution of a supervisory committee," the bench said, "and it further appears a supervisory committee was constituted by this court in an earlier round of litigation with respect to the Mullaperiyar Dam and the Union of India has also conceptualised the constitution of the supervisory committee, maybe in terms of the judgment of this court."

The attorney general's assistance was sought by the court over the constitution of the national committee and giving effect to other provisions of the Dam Safety Act.

It directed the AG to take instructions from the national dam safety authority on its responsibility under the law.

The bench, during the hearing, considered passing an order for a safety audit of the dam by an expert panel to allay any fears surrounding the British-era dam, which is situated in Kerala but controlled by Tamil Nadu.

Krishnamurthy submitted Tamil Nadu had formed an expert panel to assess the structural stability of the dam but required approval by the national authority on dam safety in the upcoming meeting on January 10.

The safety of the dam witnessed several rounds of litigation in the apex court and has remained a bone of contention between Kerala and Tamil Nadu as its water is considered a lifeline for five Tamil Nadu districts.

The top court in 2014 ruled in favour of Tamil Nadu and said the dam's structure was safe while allowing the water level to be kept at 142 feet and constituted a supervisory committee to assess its safety from time to time.

While Tamil Nadu has contended the dam was safe all along, the Kerala government said it was unsafe and a higher water level could endanger lives downstream in case of a breach and sought its decommissioning.