Polavaram Project vs Tribal Rights

 

Polavaram Project vs Tribal Rights

The Polavaram irrigation project has once again come into the spotlight after the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) warned of street protests if the interests of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) in Odisha’s Malkangiri district are harmed. The issue raises important questions related to federalism, environmental governance, tribal rights, and inter-State river water disputes—key areas for UPSC Prelims and Mains.

---

Background of the Polavaram Project

The Polavaram Project is a multipurpose irrigation project on the Godavari River in Andhra Pradesh. It aims to provide irrigation, drinking water, and hydroelectric power, and to transfer surplus Godavari water to the Krishna basin.

According to the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT), the original design specifications were:

• Flood discharge capacity: 36 lakh cusecs

• Dam height: 140 feet

• Maximum flood level: 150 feet

• Submergence level at Konta (Odisha border): 174.22 feet

---

The Controversy

In 2006, Andhra Pradesh unilaterally revised the project design:

• Flood discharge increased to: 50 lakh cusecs

• Later studies (IIT Roorkee): 58 lakh cusecs

This revision, according to BJD, was done without consulting affected States such as Odisha and without fresh environmental clearance.

Key Allegations

1. Violation of Environmental Laws

   • No fresh clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) for revised parameters.

   • Mandatory public hearings in affected areas of Odisha were not conducted, violating the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification.

2. Impact on PVTGs

   • Revised backwater studies show:

     • Andhra Pradesh study: Submergence up to 220 feet

     • IIT Roorkee study: Submergence up to 232 feet

   • This would submerge large tribal habitations in Malkangiri, home to PVTGs like the Bonda, Didayi and Koya tribes.

3. Judicial Intervention

   • Odisha has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the clearances granted and alleging violation of environmental norms and tribal safeguards.

---

Constitutional and Legal Dimensions

1. Federalism

• Inter-State river projects require consultation and consent of affected States.

• Unilateral revision violates cooperative federalism.

2. Tribal Rights

• Article 21: Right to life includes the right to livelihood and habitat.

• Fifth Schedule: Protection of tribal areas.

• Forest Rights Act, 2006: Consent of Gram Sabhas mandatory before displacement.

3. Environmental Governance

• EIA Notification, 2006:

  • Public hearing mandatory.

  • Fresh clearance is required for a change in project parameters.

• Precautionary Principle & Sustainable Development (SC jurisprudence).

Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 

The EIA Notification, 2006 was issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). It makes environmental clearance mandatory for certain categories of development projects before they can start.

---

Objectives

• To ensure sustainable development

• To assess environmental, social, and ecological impacts

• To involve the public in decision-making

• To apply the precautionary principle

---

Key Features

1. Project Categorisation

Projects are divided into two categories:

Category A

• Cleared by MoEFCC at the Central level

• Large-scale and high-impact projects

• Examples:

  • River valley projects

  • Thermal power plants

  • Mining above a certain size

Category B

• Cleared by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)

• Further divided into:

  • B1: Requires full EIA and public hearing

  • B2: No public hearing, limited study

---

2. Stages of Environmental Clearance

1. Screening (for Category B projects)

2. Scoping – Terms of Reference (ToR) issued

3. Public Consultation – Hearing of affected people

4. Appraisal – By Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC/SEAC)

5. Grant or Rejection of Clearance

---

3. Public Hearing

• Conducted by the State Pollution Control Board

• Mandatory for most Category A and B1 projects

• Ensures tribal, local, and environmental concerns are heard

• Gram Sabha consultation important in the Scheduled Areas

---

4. Post-Clearance Monitoring

• Six-monthly compliance reports

• Can lead to suspension or cancellation if conditions are violated

---

Constitutional & Legal Linkages

• Article 21: Right to a clean environment

• Fifth Schedule: Protection of tribal areas

• Forest Rights Act, 2006: Gram Sabha consent

• Based on principles of:

  • Sustainable Development

  • Polluter Pays

  • Inter-generational Equity

---

Relevance to Polavaram Issue

• Change in dam height and flood discharge = Change in project parameters

• Requires a fresh EIA and public hearing

• Alleged violation:

  • No consultation with Odisha tribals

  • No valid clearance for the revised design

---

UPSC Mains Ready Line

"The EIA Notification, 2006 operationalises Article 21 by institutionalising environmental due process, but frequent exemptions and post-facto clearances dilute its role in protecting ecologically fragile and tribal regions."

---

Relevance for UPSC

Prelims

• Polavaram Project

• PVTGs in Odisha

• Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal

• EIA Notification 2006

Mains (GS Paper II & III)

Possible Questions:

1. Discuss the challenges posed by large river valley projects to tribal rights in India.

2. How do inter-State river water disputes test India’s federal structure?

3. Examine the role of environmental clearances and public hearings in ensuring sustainable development.

---

Conclusion

The Polavaram issue is not merely a political dispute but a classic UPSC case study combining:

• Development vs Environment

• Centre-State Relations

• Rights of PVTGs

• Judicial oversight and environmental law

It highlights the need for scientifically sound, legally compliant, and socially just development, ensuring that infrastructure growth does not come at the cost of India’s most vulnerable communities.