Interview: Why I Quit: Environmentalist Ravi Chopra Details How Govt 'Bulldozed' Char Dham Highway Project

Dr. Ravi Chopra, an eminent environmentalist and Director of the People's Science Institute in Dehradun, has been a decades-long voice for the fragile Himalayan ecology. His commitment was brought into sharp public focus in 2019 when the Supreme Court appointed him to chair the High-Powered Committee (HPC) overseeing the massive Char Dham highway project, a $1.5 billion endeavor to widen 900 kilometers of roads in Uttarakhand. However, in early 2022, Dr. Chopra made the dramatic decision to resign. His resignation—which he described as an act of protest—came after the Supreme Court, citing "security concerns," overruled the HPC's primary environmental recommendation to limit road width to 5.5 meters in the vulnerable terrain.

In this exclusive interview with Paresh Malakar, Dr. Chopra speaks about the moral and environmental crisis that led to his departure. He discusses the critical balance between national security and ecological preservation, the alleged failures of the government to implement basic environmental safeguards, and what his act of resistance signifies for the future of development in India's most ecologically sensitive region.

Edited excerpts:

What is the background and core proposal of the Char Dham highway project?

The Char Dham Pariyojana was announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at an election rally in Dehradun in December 2016. It came as a surprise because there had been no public demand for roads of this kind. It was meant to be an "all-weather road" connecting the four major shrines—Yamunotri, Gangotri, Kedarnath, and Badrinath. The proposal was to build four-lane roads with a 10-meter wide tarred carriageway. The project also included a fifth road (Tanakpur to Pithoragarh) in the Kumaon region. The total length was 889 kilometers.

How did the government attempt to bypass the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for this project?

According to existing law, a road project over 100 kilometers long requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The government avoided this by breaking the 889-kilometer project into 53 smaller projects, with none close to 100 kilometers. This was a clear act of subterfuge to bypass the EIA process.

How did you become involved, and what was the mandate of the Supreme Court-appointed High-Powered Committee (HPC)?

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the government's effort to avoid the EIA, arguing that over 50,000 trees had been or were being cut, leading to dangerous landslides. The Supreme Court appointed the HPC in September 2019, naming me as the head. The petitioners urged me to accept to help "save the Himalayas." The committee was mandated to monitor, review, and recommend changes to the project to ensure environmental safety and security. I was the only non-official, named member.

Why did you ultimately resign from the HPC in 2022?

My resignation was primarily due to the government representatives ignoring scientific advice and the Supreme Court's mandate. Handling the committee became difficult when the government insisted on co-opting several officials (including District Magistrates) with voting rights. A clause in the committee's terms allowed disputes to be settled by a vote, meaning scientific decisions were put to a majority vote. The engineers also did not accept any of the committee's recommendations on construction and retaining walls.

What was the central dispute on the committee that led to the final vote?

The central dispute was the road's width. Government representatives insisted on the 10-meter carriageway. We argued that in the fragile mountain areas, this width required excessive cutting, leading to massive landslides. When the issue was put to a vote, the 13 government officials voted for the 10-meter width, while the five environment-minded members voted for a narrower, safer road. The vote was 13-5.

What crucial piece of information was hidden from the committee and the court?

Just before the final report, a colleague revealed a March 2018 notification from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH). This document stated that wide roads in mountain areas had been a "disaster" and that the width should be restricted to 5.5meters (intermediate width). This document was deliberately kept hidden from the committee, the NGT, and the Supreme Court. I included it as part of my dissent in the final report.

What was Justice Nariman's initial ruling, and how did the Ministry of Defence challenge it?

Justice Rohinton Nariman, after reading the full report and my dissent with the MoRTH notification, ruled that the government must follow its own law. He ordered the road width to be restricted to 5.5 meters. Following this, the Ministry of Defence filed an affidavit arguing for a 7-meter width to accommodate defense equipment, though Justice Nariman initially rejected this, sticking to the 5.5-meter rule.

How did the government change its stance after the case was reassigned to a new judge?

The case was eventually assigned to Justice D.Y. Chandrachud after Justice Nariman retired. Just before the hearing, the Ministry of Road Transport and the Ministry of Defence circulated a note stating they had jointly agreed on a 10-meter road width. The government teams used this to shut down the committee meeting. Ultimately, Justice Chandrachud gave a decision in favor of the government.

What prompted your final resignation after the judicial decision?

Following Justice Chandrachud's decision, and particularly after the 2021 Rishi Ganga flash flood (where two dams were destroyed and 200 laborers died), I wrote to the judge and resigned. I stated that based on his judgment, I could no longer see how I could help protect the environment of the Himalayan region, which was my core reason for accepting the chairmanship.

What is the current status of the Char Dham project?

The road is still incomplete, and its cost has certainly increased significantly. The Rishikesh-Badrinath Road is collapsing in several locations, which have become permanently prone to landslides. Work is stalled in the sensitive Bhagirathi Eco-sensitive Zone (the road to Gangotri), where the government is attempting to widen the road and has marked thousands of trees for cutting, going against previous assurances. The Yamunotri road has had its last 30-40 kilometers restricted to the 5.5-meter cutting width by the ministry itself.

What is your view on the contradiction between "development" and environmental protection in the Himalayas?

First, existing laws, rules, and notifications must be respected; they are not made on a whim. Second, while legitimate defense security needs have priority, they must be based on disaster-resilience. We need narrower roads so that defense movement is not stopped by unpredictable landslides in an emergency. The Himalayas are young and extremely fragile mountains, emerging from four major fault zones. This makes the rock structure weak, fissured, and fractured. Large-scale, unregulated development destabilizes this fragile structure, pushing the region toward a "catastrophic tipping point." Resolution requires development projects to be designed to accommodate this geological reality.