2026 Wayanad Landslide Was “Foreseen”, DDMA Had Issued Five Warnings: Amicus Tells Kerala High Court
SEC effectively disabled the only statutory authority that had been actively warning of the developing hazard, report claims.
The 2026 Wayanad landslide which struck the Kalladi tunnel construction site was "foreseen", the Kerala High Court was told on Friday."The Kalladi disaster of 07.07.2026 was not unforeseen; it was foreseen, in writing, five times over," Senior Advocate Renjith Thampan, acting as amicus curiae in the High Court's ongoing suo motu proceedings on disaster management, said in his report before...
The 2026 Wayanad landslide which struck the Kalladi tunnel construction site was "foreseen", the Kerala High Court was told on Friday.
"The Kalladi disaster of 07.07.2026 was not unforeseen; it was foreseen, in writing, five times over," Senior Advocate Renjith Thampan, acting as amicus curiae in the High Court's ongoing suo motu proceedings on disaster management, said in his report before a Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K.
According to the amicus, the Wayanad District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) had repeatedly cautioned the executing agencies about the accumulation of excavated earth near the tunnel portal and had directed that the material be removed to avert a disaster. However, these warnings were allegedly not acted upon before the collapse on July 7.
The report also scrutinises a June 3, 2026 decision of the State Executive Committee (SEC) of the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority, which took the view that neither the State Disaster Management Authority nor the DDMA had any legal mandate to oversee projects that had already obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) under the Environmental Impact Assessment framework.The SEC had consequently directed that the matter be returned to the DDMA without further examination.
The amicus has termed this interpretation legally unsustainable, contending that the Disaster Management Act, 2005 casts an independent statutory obligation on disaster management authorities to assess and mitigate risks arising from development projects, irrespective of whether environmental clearance has been granted.
The report also examines compliance with the environmental clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on June 17, 2025, for the ₹2,134.50-crore twin-tube tunnel project connecting Kozhikode and Wayanad. It notes that the clearance imposed 60 conditions relating to muck disposal, worker safety, landslide monitoring and coordination with disaster management authorities.
Among the conditions highlighted are requirements that excavated material be disposed of only at approved sites, that safety measures such as shotcreting and rock bolting be undertaken where necessary, and that landslide-related data be shared with the DDMA.
The amicus has alleged that nearly one lakh cubic metres of excavated soil remained piled up near the tunnel portal instead of being transported to designated disposal sites, in violation of the environmental clearance conditions.
Relying on Sections 30, 33 and 34 of the Disaster Management Act, the report states that DDMA possess clear statutory powers to examine construction activities, issue preventive directions and require compliance where disaster risks are identified. It also invokes Section 72 of the Act, which gives the legislation overriding effect over inconsistent laws and statutory instruments, including those under the environmental regulatory framework.
According to the report, the SEC's decision effectively disabled the only statutory authority that had been actively warning of the developing hazard.
The amicus has recommended that the High Court direct the authorities to examine possible violations under the Disaster Management Act, the Environment (Protection) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in relation to the deaths and the alleged non-compliance with statutory directions.
The report further seeks production of the project's Contractor's All Risks insurance policy, a comprehensive audit of compliance with environmental clearance conditions, suspension of construction until an independent geotechnical safety assessment is completed, immediate stabilisation and removal of the remaining muck, correction of the SEC's June 3 decision and statewide safety protocols for infrastructure projects in landslide-prone regions.
When the matter was taken up, the State sought time to process the lump-sum compensation claims of the victims. Accordingly, the Court adjourned the case for two weeks.
Previously, the Court had directed the State government to ensure that ex-gratia compensation to the victims of the recent landslide in Wayanad is disbursed immediately and that for now hospitalisation and treatment expenses for the injured persons shall be incurred by the State.
Case Title: In Re: Prevention And Management Of Natural Disasters In Kerala v. State Of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 28509/ 2024 & Connected Cases