Flood Control Measures Can't Ignore Ecological Impact: Kerala High Court On Thottappally Spillway Sand Removal
Anamika MJ
1 Jan 2026 11:30 AM IST
The Kerala High Court has recently directed the State Government to constitute a multi-departmental committee to regulate and monitor sand and soil removal at the Thottappally Spillway in Alappuzha, stressing that flood-control measures cannot be carried out at the cost of ecological destruction, particularly in sensitive coastal zones and turtle nesting habitats.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M disposed of two connected writ petitions which challenged an order issued by the Alappuzha District Collector under Section 30 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, permitting large-scale removal of sand and vegetation from the Thottappally Spillway to facilitate flood mitigation in the Kuttanad region.
The petitioners alleged that the sand removal, justified as a disaster-management measure, had effectively turned into an annual mineral sand mining operation, causing severe ecological damage. The petitioners highlighted that the spillway and its adjoining beach form a CRZ-I A area, under the Coastal Regulation Zone NOtification, 2011 and is classified as a turtle nesting ground, used by endangered species such as the Olive Ridley and Hawksbill turtles, protected under Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
The court noted that official affidavits revealed that sand removal had been carried out annually since 2020, covering at least 300 metres of sandbar width each year, without any ecological impact assessment or participation of environmental experts. Monitoring was limited to quantity control by engineering departments, with no mechanism to assess biodiversity loss or shoreline degradation.
The Court also took note of a report submitted by the Assistant Conservator of Forests and the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority (KCZMA) which confirmed that prolonged sand removal had altered the natural beach profile, caused erosion, disrupted coastal equilibrium, and damaged turtle nesting grounds. The report noted increased vulnerability of the shoreline and recommended urgent levelling of leftover sand heaps, scientific hydrodynamic studies, and expansion of CRZ-I A classification in the area.
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, in the affidavit filed, has also cautioned that continued sand mining posed a clear and present danger to marine turtle populations. A comprehensive scientific study to assess the ecological impact of sand removal on the area has also been suggested by the Principal Chief Conservator.
The Court observed that the statutory authority of the District Collector under the Disaster Management Act to order sand removal for flood prevention is a settled position which has also been upheld by the Supreme Court. But the Bench emphasized that the manner of implementation must be ecologically sustainable.
The Bench noted that though a Monitoring Committee consisting of local-level officials under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Collector, Alappuzha is envisaged to monitor the activity relating to sand removal, the absence of an ecological expert in the committee makes the process of sand removal order a mere regulatory permission.
“The ecological impact of the activity cannot be lost sight of and deserves to be taken heed of especially since the area falls within the jurisdictional ambit of the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority.” Court noted.
The Court thus directed the Chief Secretary of Kerala to constitute, within two months, a committee headed by the District Collector, Alappuzha, with representation from Irrigation/Water Resources Department, Forest and Wildlife Department, Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, Purakkad and Thakazhy Grama Panchayats and a locally active environmental NGO.
The committee will be responsible for assessing ecological impacts, determining permissible quantities, and monitoring all future sand or soil removal at the Thottappally Spillway. Any removal activity must now be undertaken only after obtaining inputs from this committee, and compliance must be reported to the court.
With the above direction, the Court disposed of the petition.
Case Title: Green Roots Nature Conservation Forum and Anr v Government of India and Ors and connected case
Case No: WP(C) 16281/ 2019 and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 858
Counsel for Petitioners: Thomas M Jacob, Akhil K Madhav, V Prasanth, V Mangala, Liju C Stephen, Indu Susan Jacob, Taj K Tom, Abhijith U
Counsel for Respondents: M P Sreekrishnan, P Naryanan(Sr. GP), B Pramod, Nagaraj Naryanan (Spl. GP), M P Prakash, C Dinesh, Latha Anand, N Manoj Kumar (State Attorney), M N Radhkrishna Menon, K R Pramoth Kumar, S Vishnu, Sidharth PS, P G Pramod