The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition against the Environmental Clearance for the Kozhikode-Wayanad tunnel project in Kerala. It also allowed the petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal if the authorities violate any EC condition during construction.
During the hearing, the Court called the project one of “national importance”. According to the Bench, the tunnel could become a new “lifeline” for the people of Kerala. The judges noted the heavy road congestion in the State and also referred to the difficulty in acquiring land. They added that experts had already examined the environmental issues and adopted safeguards.
Challenge To Environmental Clearance
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the case. Wayanad Prakrithi Samrakshana Samiti filed the petition. The organisation challenged the Environmental Clearance that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change granted to the Public Works Department of the Government of Kerala. The clearance covered construction of a Twin Tube Unidirectional Tunnel Road (2+2 Lane) with Four Lane Approach (from existing roads). The road will provide direct connectivity between Anakkampoyil – Kalladi – Meppadi in Kozhikode and Wayanad Districts of Kerala.
The dispute concerns an 8.735 km twin-tube tunnel road through the Western Ghats. The project aims to connect Kozhikode and Wayanad. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the Kerala High Court’s December 2025 judgment, which rejected the challenge.
Petitioners’ Objections
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the petitioners. He argued that Wayanad is a highly eco-sensitive area. In his submission, the region is prone to landslides and is home to rare species of animals, birds and plants. He contended that the authorities should have treated the project as a Category A project under the EIA notification, not Category B. He further argued that the Central Government should have carried out the appraisal. Instead, the State-level SEIAA handled it. Divan called that a grave illegality.
He also submitted that the Nilgiris Biosphere Reserve falls within a 10-kilometre radius of the project area. Divan pointed out that a deadly landslide hit the region in July 2024 and killed hundreds of people. He added that the High Court had itself taken suo motu cognisance of the Wayanad landslide.
In response, the Bench said the High Court had already considered these submissions. It referred to the High Court’s observation 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, disputed that finding. According to him, the authorities never treated the project as a Category A project. He argued that they did not frame the terms of reference as for a Category A project. Nor did they carry out any appraisal on that basis. “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,” he argued.
Court’s Observations During Hearing
Chief Justice Kant, however, said the experts had 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,” he observed.
Divan replied that the petitioners were not opposing tunnels as such. Rather, they objected to a tunnel in an ecologically sensitive and landslide-prone area where 400 people had died. The Chief Justice responded: “Scientists and engineers will take care of that. They are in the field, they know everything. They are the actual decision makers.” He then added, “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.” Divan replied that the petitioners also came from the same area and had suffered tremendous loss.
The Chief Justice also stressed the safeguards attached to the approval. He 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.”
Final Order
The Bench also noted that the Central Government had appeared before the High Court and approved the project. Divan argued that the Central authority had not independently applied its mind. The Court disagreed and pointed out that the Central authority had imposed various conditions.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the State. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj represented the Union.
While disposing of the petition, the Bench referred to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned High Court judgment and to the report of the Central Expert Appraisal Committee. It noted that the authorities had granted approval subject to several conditions. The Court said the project proponent must strictly comply with those conditions during execution. It added that if any condition is not followed, the petitioners may approach the National Green Tribunal. According to the Court, such a violation would amount to a fresh cause of action. On that basis, it found no reason to interfere with the High Court judgment. It also left it open to the petitioners to move the NGT during execution, if needed.
Case: WAYANAD PRAKRITHI SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI Vs UNION OF INDIA | SLP(C) No. 10154/2026
Also read: The Synthetic Victim Doctrine: Rethinking ‘Child’ Identity Under India’s POCSO Regime
