'Project Will Be Lifeline For Kerala' : Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To EC For Wayanad Tunnel Construction

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging the Environmental Clearance(EC) granted for the Kozhikode-Wayanad tunnel construction in Kerala.

Granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal if there was any violation of the conditions of the EC during the construction of the tunnel, the Court rejected the challenge.

During the hearing, the Court observed that the project was of "national importance" and would give a new "lifeline" to the people of Kerala, where there is immense congestion in roads due to high population density and difficulty in procuring land.

The bench also observed that the domain experts have considered the matter and have adopted safeguards to address environmental concerns.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition filed by Wayanad Prakrithi Samrakshana Samiti challenging Environmental clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to the Public Works Department of the Government of Kerala for construction of Twin Tube Unidirectional Tunnel Road (2+2 Lane) with Four Lane Approach (from existing roads) for providing direct connectivity between Anakkampoyil - Kalladi - Meppadi in Kozhikode and Wayanad Districts of Kerala State.

The project involves the construction of an 8.735 km twin-tube tunnel road connecting Kozhikode and Wayanad through the Western Ghats.

The organisation approached the Supreme Court against the judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court in December 2025, by which the petitioner's challenge was repelled.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for the petitioners, submitted that Wayanad is a highly eco-sensitive area, which is prone to landslides, and is home to various rare species of animals, birds and plants. He argued that the project ought to have been treated as 'Category A' in terms of the EIA notification, instead of Category B.

He argued that the appraisal ought to have been done by the Central Government, whereas it was done at the State level, by the SEIAA,  which was a grave illegality. The Nligiris biosphere reserve falls within a 10-kilometre radius and witnessed a deadly landslide in July 2024, killing hundreds of people. He underscored that the High Court itself had taken a suo motu case over the Wayanad landslide.

The bench expressed that the High Court has properly considered these arguments. The bench referred to the specific observation made by the High Court that "the SEAC and the CEAC took note of the villages notified as ESAs in the draft notification dated 31.07.2024 and followed the procedure of getting the project assessed by the CEAC by treating it as a Category 'A' project as mandated by the General Conditions appended to the EIA notification."

Divan however contended that this finding of the High Court was factually incorrect and asserted that it was never treated as a Category A project. Divan stressed that the terms of reference were not prepared as per a Category A project, and no appraisal was done for such a project. 

"The High Court has merely said, that these are technical matters. Then at least, the technical procedure must be followed. That has not been done. If the law prescribes that something has to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner only," Divan argued.

The Chief Justice however observed that the project was of national importance, and the experts have addressed the concerns.

"Precautions have been taken. It is a project of national importance after all. See the kind of congestion on road and highways. Because the state has its own limitation in terms of available land, and therefore they are going for a tunnel," CJI Kant observed.

"We are not against the tunnels. But it is in an ecologically sensitive area, landslide-prone, where 400 people have died," Divan submitted.

"Scientists and engineers will take care of that. They are in the field, they know everything. They are the actual decision makers," CJI replied.

"If the project is executed without any hurdle, it will become the lifeline for the people. Tunnel system is the best to protect wildlife. Look at the hardship faced by the people in the area," CJI added. Divan said that the petitioners also belong to the same area who have suffered tremendous loss.

Pointing out that rigorous conditions have been imposed, the CJI said :

"It is not a case where any mechanical decision has been taken. The conditions are very rigorous. Once you follow all these things we see no reason that this project can have any adverse impact. The only thing is somebody will have to watch the compliance. For that you have an entire bench(NGT) in the nearby area."

The bench said that the Central Government was also a party before the High Court, and they have also approved the project. Divan claimed that there was no independent application of mind by the Central authority. However, the bench disagreed, pointing out that various conditions have been imposed by the Central authority. 

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the State and Additional Solicitor Generla KM Nataraj represented the Union.

The bench disposed of the petition, observing :

"We find not only from para 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment of the High Court but also from the report of the Central Expert Appraisal Committee that the approval was accorded to the project subject to various conditions. What is more important is that, while executing the project, the project proponent must meticulously comply with the conditions. The High Court rightly felt that if any condition is not followed,  in that event, the petitioners can approach the National Green Tribunal, as such a violation can amount to accrual of a fresh cause of action. In view of the liberty granted by the High Court, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The petitioners will be at liberty to approach the NGT during the execution of the project, if so needed, in terms of the liberty granted by the High Court."

Case : WAYANAD PRAKRITHI SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI Vs UNION OF INDIA | SLP(C) No. 10154/2026