How many to cut? Controversy and opposition grow over tree felling to widen Uttarakhand’s Gangotri Highway

The proposed felling of approximately 6,800 trees for the widening of a 20-km stretch of the Gangotri Highway in Uttarakhand, as part of the ambitious Char Dham Project, has ignited a significant controversy, underscoring the perennial conflict between infrastructure development and environmental preservation in India's ecologically sensitive regions. This issue is a crucial case study for competitive exam aspirants, illustrating complex governance challenges.

The Char Dham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojana, or Char Dham Project, is a flagship initiative launched by the Indian government in 2016. Its primary objective is to improve connectivity to the four revered Hindu pilgrimage sites – Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri, and Yamunotri – in Uttarakhand. Envisioned as an all-weather road network, the project involves widening nearly 900 km of national highways at an estimated cost of ₹12,000 crore. Beyond religious tourism, the project holds immense strategic importance, particularly for enhancing military mobility to the India-China border areas, a crucial aspect of national security. This dual objective often places it in direct conflict with environmental considerations.

The controversy specifically revolves around the widening of the Gangotri Highway, a key segment of the Char Dham network. Environmental activists and concerned citizens have raised alarms over the scale of tree felling, arguing that such large-scale deforestation in the fragile Himalayan ecosystem will lead to irreversible ecological damage. Concerns include increased risk of landslides and flash floods, loss of biodiversity, disruption of natural water sources, and destabilization of the mountain slopes, a region already vulnerable to climate change impacts. The opposition highlights that the project's environmental impact assessment (EIA) might have been inadequate or that environmental safeguards are being overlooked in the rush for development.

Key stakeholders in this dispute include the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) and the Border Roads Organisation (BRO), which are the implementing agencies, along with the Uttarakhand State Government, all advocating for the project's strategic and economic benefits. On the opposing side are environmental groups, local communities, and activists who champion ecological protection and sustainable development. The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal (NGT), plays a critical role in mediating such conflicts, often forming expert committees to assess environmental damage and propose mitigation measures, as seen in previous interventions related to the Char Dham project itself.

For India, this controversy is profoundly significant. Economically, the project promises to boost tourism, create employment, and improve connectivity for local populations. Strategically, it is vital for national security, enabling faster deployment of troops and equipment to border regions. However, it also tests India's commitment to environmental governance and sustainable development. The outcome will set a precedent for future infrastructure projects in ecologically fragile zones, determining how the nation balances its developmental aspirations with its environmental responsibilities. The historical context of the Chipko Movement in the 1970s, which originated in Uttarakhand to protect forests, and the devastating Uttarakhand floods of 2013, serve as stark reminders of the region's ecological sensitivity and the potential consequences of unchecked human intervention.

Several constitutional and legal provisions are central to this debate. **Article 48A** of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) mandates that "The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country." Complementing this, **Article 51A(g)**, a Fundamental Duty, states that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures." Beyond these, the **Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980**, requires prior approval from the Central Government for any diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. The **Environment (Protection) Act, 1986**, provides the central government with broad powers to take measures for improving and protecting the environment. Furthermore, the mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification and the role of the **National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010**, ensure judicial oversight and environmental justice. The Supreme Court has previously intervened, forming a high-powered committee to assess the environmental impact of the Char Dham project, reflecting the judicial commitment to environmental protection.

Looking ahead, the controversy's resolution will have far-reaching implications. It could lead to revised project designs incorporating stricter environmental safeguards, a greater emphasis on 'green infrastructure' techniques, or even judicial directives mandating alternative, less destructive routes. The long-term impact on the unique Himalayan ecosystem, its biodiversity, and the livelihoods of local communities remains a critical concern. Ultimately, this case highlights the ongoing challenge of achieving sustainable development in a rapidly developing nation, where national security, economic growth, and environmental protection must be meticulously balanced.