Foreign hand in eco laws: NHAI official

BENGALURU: An official of the National Highways Authority of India has stunned the Karnataka High Court by claiming in his affidavit that the Environment (Protection) Act has been enacted at the instance of ‘foreign powers’. He also went on to claim that many NGOs too were acting at their behest. Taking serious exception to the affidavit, the High Court on Monday ordered an inquiry into it.

In the controversial affidavit, it was also stated that these litigations were initiated by vested interests, individuals and groups, with hidden aims.  “... The decisions were taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June, 1972, in which India participated, to take appropriate steps for the protection and improvement of human environment. Hence, the Act has been passed by Parliament not only for protection of environment but also at the instance of foreign powers. And many NGOs are filing such writ petitions at the instance of foreign powers,” it was stated in the affidavit.

Expressing shock over the affidavit, a division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum directed the NHAI Chairman to nominate a higher official to hold inquiry into the affidavit submitted by R B Pekam, Deputy General Manager (T), Regional Office, NHAI, Bengaluru, and submit a report in a sealed cover.

The affidavit was filed in relation to the public interest litigation of United Conservation Movement Charitable and Welfare Trust questioning NHAI’s office memorandum dated August 22, 2013, which recommends exemption of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) process for expansion of National Highways.

It was stated in the affidavit that there were many organisations in India, calling themselves as Environmental Action Groups and Human Rights Groups, which are actively involved in attacking development projects, and challenging government policies and notifications and doing anti-national activities. The petitioners are selectively targeting only NHAI, it was alleged. Making it clear that it has not accepted NHAI’s contention on the issue of receiving funds from abroad, the bench asked the petitioner to disclose whether any such funds were received.