The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sought the State's response on the action taken pursuant to the report submitted by the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) concerning the Ken-Betwa Link Project.

The division bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain was hearing a PIL raising concerns over the project's impact on the Panna Tiger Reserve, Ken Gharial Sanctuary and displaced communities.

The bench expressed reluctance to examine issues already before the Supreme Court in Re: Networking of Rivers, noting that the apex court is examining the CEC report and link projects across the country.

"Our concern is this. That if any forum prior to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is in-seisin of the issue. Will it be prudent for us to now step in and pass any orders which perhaps may not be appropriate. Because the Supreme Court itself is in season of the matter in its entirety. It is having a view of all such link projects throughout the country".

The petitioner-in-person, Arihant Tiwari, submitted that the CEC report, submitted in 2019, had raised concerns regarding the project's wildlife clearance, environmental consequences and the extent of forest land and wildlife habitat likely to be affected.

The petitioner also informed the Court that the wildlife clearance granted by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife and the Ministry of Environment and Forests had been challenged before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The NGT subsequently transferred the matter to the Supreme Court, which referred it to the CEC.

The petitioner further submitted that an application had been filed before the Supreme Court seeking consideration of the CEC report.

The bench observed that the Supreme Court would examine whether its own directions regarding such projects had been complied with, and said the High Court could not presume non-compliance in the absence of specific instances. "Till such time, we cannot go on to believe that they are not complying with the directions."

When the petitioner submitted that the CEC report prescribed the procedure to be followed for completing the project and alleged that the procedure was not being followed, the bench said:

"When the higher court is examining it, the propriety demands that it should be examined by that forum, under whose order those actions have been taken."

The petitioner also sought constitution of a grievance redressal committee for people affected by the project. The bench rejected the prayer, observing that it "would lead to creating a parallel system."

The Court also declined to assume that the State would act contrary to the Supreme Court's directions.

"There is no reason to believe that they (the state) are going to do something which is completely against the report. We are not prepared to believe that without there being instances."

The High Court has now sought the State's clarification on the status of proceedings before the Supreme Court and the action taken in relation to the CEC report. It also directed the State to respond to the January 21, 2022 communication issued by the Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India.

The matter has been listed for October 13

For Union: Deputy Solicitor General Shri Suyash Mohan Guru and Additional Solicitor General Sunil Kumar Jain

For State: Additional Advocate General Bramhadatt Singh