logo
Joshimath lessons ignored: Rs 6,200cr Doon–Mussoorie elevated road may trigger another ecological disaster

Joshimath lessons ignored: Rs 6,200cr Doon–Mussoorie elevated road may trigger another ecological disaster

Time of India05-06-2025
Dr Rakesh Kapoor, a former special secretary to the government of Himachal Pradesh, is a geologist and an expert in integrated waste management
The environmental casualties in Uttarakhand are now perhaps part of life. We haven't learnt lessons from the 2013 Kedarnath tragedy—Rishiganga, Joshimath, and Silkyara are happening repetitively. Cloudbursts and landslides have become common features. From hills to plains, the story is the same: unplanned growth, projects being conceived and implemented without envisioning the fear of environmental catastrophes.
The proposal to widen VIP Road from Dila Ram Chowk to Raj Bhawan, taking a toll of 3,000 trees, and the proposed road from Rishikesh to Dehradun have been partially stalled only after thousands of citizens and environmentalists gathered to protest. The fire has still not been extinguished, but a new controversial chapter of an elevated road from Dehradun to Mussoorie—to cut travel time for tourists entering the hill state from Delhi-NCR and Western UP—has been opened.
Even after a casual gaze at the proposal, it is clear that it has been mooted only with the aim of minting money through contracts. Because even today, the agency is not clear about who will finance and execute the proposal. It has raised more questions than it has answered on vital issues concerning environmental degradation, rehabilitation, and the real benefit of the project.
Firstly, what is the real need for an elevated 26 km road corridor passing through part of Dehradun city? Is it just to save time for tourists from Delhi-NCR reaching Mussoorie and to attract more tourists to the Queen of Hills, especially on weekends?
How much time are they going to save? At what cost is it going to be?
Secondly, the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA) and government either do not know or do not want to disclose the position of the land bank, ie the status of land—whether it is encroached upon by dwellers, government, forest, or private land—on which the project is to be implemented.
If for a 26 km elevated road, 2,614 identified families are to be displaced, it comes out to be 100 families per km, or 1 family per 10 metres. Without assessing the implication of the plan cost—besides environmental cost assessment and its inclusion into the project cost—how is it going to be implemented?
The government sources have confirmed that no proposal for providing land-for-land compensation to property owners instead of acquired land has been prepared at the state government level so far. The reported dichotomic brief of the MDDA VC in a section of the press is creating more confusion, as it envisages that the displaced 2,614 identified families shall have two options—either land-for-land or monetary compensation. When no plan has been finalised, neither the land bank nor site for allotment of land to rehabilitate displaced families has been demarcated, nor is there a Section 4 notification on land acquisition prescribed under the Act, despite it being mandatory—how will the displaced families exercise the option?
Now comes a very vital point. The town of Mussoorie, during normal weekends, sees the entry of 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles, especially during the summer months, ie end of March to June, which causes traffic jams for hours together and chaotic situations often. Once the elevated road comes up, another 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles are going to be added to this lot. The town, as per reports, has parking capacity of only 2,000 four-wheelers and 1,500–2,000 two-wheelers altogether. The three new parking lots to add 2,000 to the present capacity are still hanging in the fire—either due to financial crunch or facing litigation since 2019.
Now comes the most vital part of the project. The very foundation of the so-called Rs 6,200 crore project is belied by simple arithmetic. No denying the fact that even today, the Volvo buses plying between Delhi and Dehradun take just 270 to 275 minutes, despite the Dehradun–Delhi expressway not being fully operational. If you add another 60 minutes to reach Mussoorie via the bypass, anybody can reach it in 5 hours and 30 minutes even today.
Even after the 26 km elevated road, traffic jams are bound to happen in the absence of parking spaces for the additional 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles entering Mussoorie. If tourists have to spend 2–3 hours in traffic jams, what's the point of arriving 30 minutes earlier?
The Dehradun–Mussoorie ropeway project—aimed at finding a solution to the problem of traffic jams with just Rs 300 crore investment (which is in an advanced stage of execution as per the government's own claim)—shall not only save time, reduce environmental pollution, and add adventure to the journey for tourists, but also serve as an additional attraction. It seems more credible.
The claim of making tourists reach Mussoorie in 4.5 hours from Delhi is belied by the project's design itself. As the elevated road Bindal–Rispna corridor shall land at a point near Max Hospital.
Don't spread this misinformation about Delhi to Mussoorie in 2.5 hours. It will still take you about 7-odd hours with all these expressways and elevated corridors, assuming normal traffic flows.
Let's take this example: you stay in GK or Model Town in Delhi and are coming to Uttarakhand:
60 minutes from your home to Akshardham, Delhi. 150 minutes from Akshardham to Asarodi, Dehradun (as claimed by the government). 30 minutes from Asarodi to the entry point of the new elevated corridors (assumed). 30 minutes on 26 km elevated corridors (once they are ready). 60 minutes from Max Hospital or Nagal in Dehradun to Mussoorie (Max & Nagal are points in Dehradun where the elevated corridor ends).
You will also likely take a minimum of two breaks during this long journey. Add another 60 minutes for your breaks.
The grand total is coming close to 6.5 to 7 hours.
Today, without all these expressways and corridors, you are still reaching in about 7 to 8 hours.
If there is just one hour of time saving, is it worth it to cut thousands of trees, create these mammoth monsters of cement, kill our rivers forever, ruin the skyline of Dehradun, and displace so many people? Why this fuss?
The project is going to be an environmental and ecological disaster—besides being pound-foolish, penny-wise. We are going to add another Joshimath to the list. In Rs 6,200 crore, another hill town nearby could be developed for tourism purposes—if only that is the consideration.
But it's beyond that—what we actually want and what we really need.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

10 Years Of Probe, 7 In Trial, 17 For Verdict: A Timeline Of The 2008 Malegaon Blast Case
10 Years Of Probe, 7 In Trial, 17 For Verdict: A Timeline Of The 2008 Malegaon Blast Case

News18

timean hour ago

  • News18

10 Years Of Probe, 7 In Trial, 17 For Verdict: A Timeline Of The 2008 Malegaon Blast Case

Last Updated: The trial, which started in 2018, got over on April 19, 2025, with the verdict set to be delivered today 17 years after the incident took place in September 2008 Seventeen years after a blast rocked Maharashtra's communally sensitive Malegaon, an NIA court is likely to deliver its verdict in the highly polarising case – complete with its own set of twists and turns – on Thursday. Six persons were killed and more than 100 injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in the town, located about 200 km from Mumbai, on September 29, 2008. The trial, which started in 2018, got over on April 19, 2025, and the case was reserved for judgement. The case was initially probed by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) before being transferred to the NIA in 2011. Seven accused, including BJP leader and former MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, faced trial in the case for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, and the Indian Penal Code. Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni are the other accused. 2008-2009: THE BIG TWIST The Maharashtra ATS, led by Hemant Karkare, takes over the investigation and, for the first time in India, it is alleged that the blast was carried out by individuals linked to Hindu right-wing groups. October 2008: Now a BJP leader, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Shrikant Purohit of the Indian Army are arrested. The two are alleged to have links to Abhinav Bharat, a Hindu right-wing group, and suspected of carrying out a 'revenge attack" on the Muslim community. November 2008: Evidence, including the motorcycle used in the blast allegedly owned by Thakur, is recovered. Chief investigator and special IGP Hemant Karkare is martyred in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack. 2009-2011: THE POLITICS OF IT The ATS widens its net and makes more arrests, including other right-wing activists like Dayanand Pandey, Sameer Kulkarni, and Ajay Rahirkar. But there is massive political backlash as Hindutva outfits accuse the probe of being politically motivated. January 2009: The ATS files its first chargesheet naming 11 accused and three wanted persons, with Thakur and Lt Col Purohit as key conspirators. Charges include provisions of the UAPA, IPC, and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). July 31, 2009: MCOCA charges are dropped by a special court citing lack of evidence related to other cases against the accused. July 19, 2010: The Bombay High Court reinstates MCOCA charges. April 13, 2011: The case is transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). 2016-2017: NIA ALLEGATIONS, KEY ACCUSED GRANTED BAIL In a significant development, the NIA drops MCOCA charges from its supplementary chargesheet and accuses the ATS of planting evidence and forced confessions. In 2017, the key accused in the case – Thakur and Lt Col Purohit – are granted bail. May 13, 2016: The NIA files a supplementary chargesheet, dropping MCOCA charges stating that the application of the law by the ATS is questionable. It alleges that the ATS planted evidence and used coercive tactics during questioning. April 25, 2017: The Bombay High Court grants bail to Thakur on health grounds. August 21, 2017: The Supreme Court grants bail to Lt Col Purohit after nine years in jail. December 27, 2017: MCOCA charges are dropped but a special court refuses to discharge Thakur and six other accused, ordering them to face trial under the UAPA, IPC, and the Explosive Substances Act. 2018 TO PRESENT: TRIAL & VERDICT The trial in the case began 10 years after the tragic incident with the verdict now set to be delivered 17 years later. October 30, 2018: Charges are framed against seven accused, including Thakur and Lt Col Purohit. December 2018: Trial formally begins. September 2023: Prosecution closes its evidence, having examined 323 witnesses with 37 turning hostile. April 19, 2025: Final arguments conclude, and the court reserves its judgment. July 31, 2025: Verdict awaited. About the Author News Desk The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : 2008 Malegaon Blast view comments Location : Mumbai, India, India First Published: July 31, 2025, 01:48 IST News india 10 Years Of Probe, 7 In Trial, 17 For Verdict: A Timeline Of The 2008 Malegaon Blast Case Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

AAP moves SC against UP govt move to merge schools with low enrolment
AAP moves SC against UP govt move to merge schools with low enrolment

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

AAP moves SC against UP govt move to merge schools with low enrolment

Lucknow: The Aam Aadmi Party has taken its fight against the merger of schools with low enrolment in Uttar Pradesh to the Supreme Court. Party MP and UP in-charge Sanjay Singh filed a petition in the SC, challenging the UP govt's order issued on June 16, to close some primary schools and merge them with other schools within a 3 km radius. Singh called the govt's decision "arbitrary, unconstitutional, and against children's right to education," alleging that it violates not only Article 21A of the Constitution but also the spirit of the Right to Education (RTE) Act. An AAP functionary in UP said that the party highlighted the danger of closing primary schools, forcing children aged 6 to 14 years to travel 3 to 4 km through difficult and dangerous routes, including forests, railway tracks, highways, and other risky paths, which is not only impractical but could be life-threatening for children. In the petition, Singh said that as per the RTE Act, there has to be a primary school within a 1 km radius for every settlement with a population of 300. He added that before issuing this order, the govt did not consult school management committees nor seek approval from the legislative assembly. Moreover, he said, it is being implemented in the middle of the academic session, causing significant inconvenience to thousands of students and parents. Singh also argued that the order will have the worst impact on girls, children from marginalised communities, differently-abled children, and families living in remote areas.

Amend biased laws against leprosy patients, SC tells States
Amend biased laws against leprosy patients, SC tells States

The Hindu

timean hour ago

  • The Hindu

Amend biased laws against leprosy patients, SC tells States

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 30, 2025) called upon the States to summon special one-day Assembly sessions or enact an ordinance to amend discriminatory, derogatory and demeaning provisions in various laws against leprosy-affected persons. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the Centre and States will do great service to these people by removing discriminatory and demeaning provisions of law. 'States can call upon a special Assembly session or a one-day session instead of waiting for a regular monsoon session or winter session and remove or amend the discriminatory provisions against leprosy-affected persons. Where it is not possible to call for a session, an ordinance can be enacted. The State government will be doing great service to them,' the Bench said. The top court was dealing with a batch of petitions, including one initiated in 2010 in which the Bench had earlier directed the States to form a committee to identify provisions in various laws that discriminate against leprosy-affected or cured persons, and take steps for their removal so that they conform to constitutional obligations. Earlier, the court had said it was informed that there might be more than 145 State legislations where such objectionable provisions were still subsisting. The apex court on Wednesday urged the States to take remedial action and said, 'It has been brought to our notice, now let's take remedial action. It is not the court's job but the State government's to do it.' The Bench asked the States, which have not filed the status report, to do so by October and said the National Human Rights Commission, which is also dealing with the issue, may submit a report with due permission from the Chairperson. Additional advocate general Garima Prashad informed the Bench that the Uttar Pradesh government has identified three laws which need to be 'corrected'. Similarly, Uttarakhand and Rajasthan government lawyers submitted that they have filed their status reports and identified a couple of laws and necessary actions have been taken. 'The most serious of all... we don't want to use the word but see how embarrassing it is. Leprosy was one of the grounds for taking divorce,' Justice Kant told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati. The top court sought a response from the Centre and its status report on the issue. On May 7, the top court noted that these provisions are of wide range illustratively from prohibition against holding elected offices to leprosy being a ground of divorce before the family laws came to be amended by the Parliament, during pendency of these proceedings, through the Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force with effect from February 21, 2019. The court said it is not sure as to how many States have taken it seriously and earnestly and have taken any effective step to remove the offending and discriminatory expressions from their State laws so as to bring them in conformity with the Constitution. The petitioners, including the Federation of Leprosy Organisation (FOLO) and legal think-tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, have contended that over a hundred provisions existed, both in Central and in State laws which discriminated against persons affected by leprosy in ways that caused stigmatisation and indignity to them.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store