JOIN THE LCW
COMMUNITY

Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, quarterly analytics report, curated expert talks, merchandise and much more. Support our work!

Sign up today

Kerala Government Gives Go-ahead to Athirapilly Hydroelectric Project Despite Protests

Reported by

Dr. K.H. Amitha Bachan

Legal Review by

Edited by

Updated by

Published on

August 24, 2016

May 17, 2022

Edited on

August 24, 2016

State

Kerala

Sector

Power

People Affected by Conflict

1123

Households Affected by Conflict

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

138

ha

Starting Year

1998

Location of Conflict

Athirapilly

Thrissur

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Hydroelectric Project

Land Conflict Summary

Tribal communities and activists have opposed the implementation of the Athirappilly Hydroelectric Project on Chellakudy river in Thrissur district. The project was proposed by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) in 1982 and has been facing criticism since. The project received environmental and forest clearances by 1999, but the Kerala High Court ordered the Centre to reconsider the clearance in 2002 following opposition from various environmentalists and human rights activists. The first Environment Impact Assessment, conducted by the Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute, Kerala, was deemed faulty and quashed by the high court based on a complaint filed by NILANILPU (a people's organisation based in Kodungallur), Chalakkudy Puzha Samrakshana Samaithy and Geetha, a community leader of the Vazhachal tribal settlement. They declared the project an ecological disaster which would also result in the displacement of several villagers around the area. After the initial report was rejected, the KSEB roped in the Water and Power Consultancy Services, India, to carry out an environmental impact assessment, following which the project received another clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change in 2005. The Kadar tribals, who will be most impacted by the project, filed a PIL at the Kerala High Court, which quashed the clearance and directed the Pollution Control Board to conduct a public hearing. In 2011, the Western Ghats Ecological Expert Panel, headed by Madhav Gadgil, argued that clearances for the project had not been properly issued and that the project could not be carried out till the Forest Rights Act was implemented in letter and spirit. The project will displace 163 Kadar families at Vazhachal and 71 families in the Pokalappara settlements. In December 2015, tribal communities in the project area moved the High Court again, saying the project infringed upon their rights under the Forest Rights Act of 2006, and that the government could not proceed with the project disregarding their objections. In March 2018, due to continuing protests, the Minister of State for Electricity, M.M.Mani, announced that the project would be shelved until the parties arrive at a consensus. In June 2020, the Kerala government issued a fresh order to proceed with the project and to obtain a new environmental clearance for the same from the Centre. As per the order, the state government issued a "Noobjection Certificate for a period of seven years and a permit to proceed with the project". This has caused a furore among environmentalists and local people alike. A member of the Athirappilly village panchayat said in a news report that "the local body will discuss the latest developments. But the panchayat board is vehemently opposed to the project".

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Opposition against environmental degradation

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Refusal to give up land for the project

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Both

Type of Common Land

Forest

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

1500

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Forest and Scheduled Area Governance Laws, Environmental Laws

Legislations/Policies Involved

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
Section 3: Forest rights, including right to hold and live in the forest land [(3(1)(a)], right of ownership, access to collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce [3(1)(c)]; Section 4: Vesting the forest rights with Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers
Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003
Section 3: Water courses treated as government property, and government is entitled to conserve the same; Section 4: Permission required for abstracting water from the water source,
Central Ground Water Authority Guidelines for issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for ground water withdrawal
Provision 2.1.2: Provision of NOC for industries drawing ground water
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
Item 1(c): Clearance required for river valley hydroelectricity projects
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Non-implementation/violation of FRA

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Disposed

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Kerala High Court

Case Number

W.P.(C) NO. 30801 OF 2007-S

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

No items found.

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Additional Information

Nature of Protest

Advocacy (for inclusion in courts)

Complaints/petitions/letters/memorandums to officials

Protests/marches

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Kerala State Electricity Board, Kerala Forest Department, District Level Committee (DLC)

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

TBGRI , WAPCOS

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Chalakkudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithy (CPSS), CPF, Geetha, Cheftain, Vazhachal Grama Sabaha

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Resources

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Images

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Video

Tribal communities and activists have opposed the implementation of the Athirappilly Hydroelectric Project on Chellakudy river in Thrissur district. The project was proposed by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) in 1982 and has been facing criticism since. The project received environmental and forest clearances by 1999, but the Kerala High Court ordered the Centre to reconsider the clearance in 2002 following opposition from various environmentalists and human rights activists. The first Environment Impact Assessment, conducted by the Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute, Kerala, was deemed faulty and quashed by the high court based on a complaint filed by NILANILPU (a people's organisation based in Kodungallur), Chalakkudy Puzha Samrakshana Samaithy and Geetha, a community leader of the Vazhachal tribal settlement. They declared the project an ecological disaster which would also result in the displacement of several villagers around the area. After the initial report was rejected, the KSEB roped in the Water and Power Consultancy Services, India, to carry out an environmental impact assessment, following which the project received another clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change in 2005. The Kadar tribals, who will be most impacted by the project, filed a PIL at the Kerala High Court, which quashed the clearance and directed the Pollution Control Board to conduct a public hearing. In 2011, the Western Ghats Ecological Expert Panel, headed by Madhav Gadgil, argued that clearances for the project had not been properly issued and that the project could not be carried out till the Forest Rights Act was implemented in letter and spirit. The project will displace 163 Kadar families at Vazhachal and 71 families in the Pokalappara settlements. In December 2015, tribal communities in the project area moved the High Court again, saying the project infringed upon their rights under the Forest Rights Act of 2006, and that the government could not proceed with the project disregarding their objections. In March 2018, due to continuing protests, the Minister of State for Electricity, M.M.Mani, announced that the project would be shelved until the parties arrive at a consensus. In June 2020, the Kerala government issued a fresh order to proceed with the project and to obtain a new environmental clearance for the same from the Centre. As per the order, the state government issued a "Noobjection Certificate for a period of seven years and a permit to proceed with the project". This has caused a furore among environmentalists and local people alike. A member of the Athirappilly village panchayat said in a news report that "the local body will discuss the latest developments. But the panchayat board is vehemently opposed to the project".

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Opposition against environmental degradation

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Refusal to give up land for the project

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Both

Type of Common Land

Forest

Total investment involved (in Crores):

1500

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Forest and Scheduled Area Governance Laws, Environmental Laws

Legislations/Policies Involved

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
Section 3: Forest rights, including right to hold and live in the forest land [(3(1)(a)], right of ownership, access to collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce [3(1)(c)]; Section 4: Vesting the forest rights with Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers
Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003
Section 3: Water courses treated as government property, and government is entitled to conserve the same; Section 4: Permission required for abstracting water from the water source,
Central Ground Water Authority Guidelines for issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for ground water withdrawal
Provision 2.1.2: Provision of NOC for industries drawing ground water
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
Item 1(c): Clearance required for river valley hydroelectricity projects
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Non-implementation/violation of FRA

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Disposed

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Kerala High Court

Case Number

W.P.(C) NO. 30801 OF 2007-S

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

No items found.

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Nature of Protest

Advocacy (for inclusion in courts)

Complaints/petitions/letters/memorandums to officials

Protests/marches

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Kerala State Electricity Board, Kerala Forest Department, District Level Committee (DLC)

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

TBGRI , WAPCOS

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Chalakkudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithy (CPSS), CPF, Geetha, Cheftain, Vazhachal Grama Sabaha

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Documented By

Text Link

Reviewed By

Text Link

Updated By

Text Link

Edited By

Text LinkLand Conflict Watch

Other Land Conflicts in Kerala

cross
Not a member yet?
Sign up now