The Uttarakhand Tunnel Collapse of 12 November 2023, at the Silkyara Bend-Barkot tunnel, designed to connect National Highway 134 in the Uttarkashi district, brought forth a countless of legal complexities surrounding liability, compensation, and the pursuit of justice. As an essential link in the Char Dham project, aimed at connecting significant Hindu pilgrimage sites, the tunnel's collapse trapped 41 workers, sparking a massive rescue operation involving various government agencies and international experts.

The incident shed light on the challenges of constructing tunnels in the Himalayan region, with geological factors, lack of escape mechanisms, and environmental changes contributing to the collapse. This article explores the legal dimensions of the aftermath, including the investigation led by the Uttarakhand government, safety audits initiated by the National Highways Authority of India, and the broader implications for ongoing tunnel projects across the country.

Nature and Science Behind the Tunneling:

The tunnel, located in Uttarkashi near the Main Central Thrust fault in the upper Himalayan region, experienced a collapse. Despite its shallow depth of 140 meters, the high shear stress around the thrust fault poses a risk due to continuous tectonic plate movement.

Tunnels are generally safer than open excavation for roads, as they are better protected with support systems like rock bolts and steel ribs. The design of the support system depends on the rock mass, especially in areas with a mix of hard and soft rocks. The New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM) is used for such projects, providing a flexible support system.

The Silkyara Bend-Barkot tunnel needed additional support due to the mix of hard and soft rocks, but it appears that a conventional support system was used. Real-time monitoring during construction is crucial for detecting deformations and adjusting the support system. Unfortunately, it seems that the tunnel lacked instrumentation, making it impossible to detect deformations and ensuring the calculations are correct.

Unearthing the incident from Environmental Law Perspectives:

Provisions and principles of Environmental Law in India with regard to the incident are as follows:

• Environmental impact assessment: The initial tender's failure to anticipate the geological challenges in the Himalayan region raises questions about the effectiveness of the EIA process. Environmental law in India mandates a thorough EIA before any construction project, especially in ecologically sensitive areas. The lack of foresight in the tender process may point to a breach of this requirement.
• Precautionary principle: The construction in a region prone to landslides and geological faults triggers the application of the precautionary principle. Environmental laws highlight taking preventive measures when an activity has the potential to cause harm. The absence of escape shafts and construction along a geological fault raises concerns about adherence to this principle.
• Polluter Pays Principle: In the result of the incident, environmental law principles like the polluter pays should be invoked to ensure that the responsible entity, Navayuga Engineering Construction Limited (NECL), bears the financial burden of the rescue operations, environmental damage, and subsequent investigations.
• Public Trust Doctrine: The Char Dham project, connecting important Hindu pilgrimage sites, falls under the ambit of the Public Trust Doctrine. The collapse of a tunnel in such a project could be seen as a breach of the government's responsibility to protect public resources, including the safety of workers and the ecological balance in the region.
• Corporate Liability: NECL's involvement in the construction underlines the importance of corporate liability in environmental law. If it's determined that the collapse resulted from inadequate construction practices or neglect, NECL could be held accountable under environmental laws.
• Climate change considerations: The increasing intensity of rain and glacial melt events, as mentioned in the incident details, underscores the need for infrastructure projects to consider climate change effects. Environmental laws may require a reassessment of infrastructure projects in light of changing climate conditions.

Government Liability under Absolute Liability Doctrine:

To analyze whether the government can be held absolutely liable in the Absolute Liability principle, we need to consider the legal context and principles established by Indian courts.

The concept of absolute liability in environmental law was introduced in India through the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987). The Supreme Court in this case laid down the principle of absolute liability, stating that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable for any harm caused to the public or environment, irrespective of the precautions taken.

In the context of the Silkyara Bend-Barkot tunnel collapse incident, several factors need to be considered to determine whether the government can be held absolutely liable:

• Nature of the activity: Tunnel construction, especially in a geologically sensitive area like the Himalayas, can be considered a hazardous and potentially dangerous activity.
   
• Government's role: The government, through its agencies and organizations, was directly involved in the construction project. The National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) and other government agencies were overseeing the project.
   
• Knowledge of risks: If it is established that the government was aware of the geological challenges and risks associated with the construction in that particular area, and failed to take adequate precautions, it could be argued that the government is absolutely liable.
   
• Inadequate precautions: The absence of escape shafts, construction along a geological fault, and the construction in an extremely weak rock mass constitute factors that may suggest inadequate precautions were taken.
   
• Rescue operations: While the government took prompt action in organizing rescue operations, the need for such operations might indicate a lack of foresight or preventive measures during the planning and construction phases.

Considering these points, there is a basis for arguing that the government can be held liable under the principle of absolute liability. The awareness of the geological challenges, the absence of escape shafts, and the subsequent collapse that led to harm align with the criteria established in the MC Mehta case. It is essential to await the findings of the expert committee formed by the government of Uttarakhand to investigate the cause of the tunnel collapse. The results of such investigations, along with any legal actions or court proceedings that may follow, will provide a more comprehensive understanding of whether the government can be held absolutely liable in this specific case.

Legal implications and application of IPC sections:
In the case of tunnel collapse, there are several aspects that can be examined in terms of the applicability of various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Criminal Negligence (Section 304A IPC): This section can be applicable if the collapse resulted from negligence. If there was a failure in following safety standards, proper engineering practices, or if the Construction Company or individuals involved failed to take necessary precautions, it could lead to a charge under Section 304A. This section may apply if there were any fatalities resulting from the collapse.

But in this case, since all workers were successfully rescued, this section is not therefore be directly applicable. In Iqbal Singh v. State of Punjab (2013), the Supreme Court held that negligence leading to the death of individuals can be punished under Section 304A.

Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others (Section 337 IPC): If the collapse resulted in injuries to the workers, the section 337 of Indian Penal Code is applicable. It covers acts endangering life or personal safety. In State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar (2011), the court highlighted that the need to establish a direct nexus between the act and the injuries caused.

Endangering life or personal safety of others (Section 338 IPC): Similar to Section 337, if the collapse endangered the lives of the workers, the section 338 would be relevant.

Offenses relating to contracts (Section 417 IPC): If there were any fraudulent inducements or cheating involved in the construction contract, then the section 417 of IPC would be relevant.

Public nuisance (Section 268 IPC): If the collapse caused inconvenience or danger to the public, this section might be considered.

Mischief Causing Damage to Public Property (Section 425 IPC): If the collapse caused damage to public property, this section may be applicable.

Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant (Section 188): If there were specific safety regulations or orders in place, and the government failed to comply with them, this section may be invoked in that case.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and Human rights: Safeguarding Life and Liberty in the tunnel incident:
The incident of the Silkyara Bend�Barkot tunnel collapse raises several concerns related to the safety and well-being of the workers involved in the construction. In the context of the Indian Constitution, Article 21 plays an important role, as it guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. It states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." The right to life under Article 21 is not merely a physical right but includes the right to live with human dignity.

However, article 21 ensures the protection of life and personal liberty as a fundamental right, and this includes the right to work and earn a livelihood in a safe and healthy environment. The collapse of the tunnel, trapping 41 workers, raises questions about the violation of their right to life and safety.

The collapse of the tunnel, due to factors like geological faults and construction complexities, indicates a failure in ensuring the safety of the workers. The absence of escape shafts and the construction along a geological fault raise questions about the adherence to safety standards and the well-being of the workers. The right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to work in a safe environment, and any negligence or lack of precautionary measures may be seen as a violation of this right.

However, in the situation of the Silkyara Bend�Barkot tunnel incident, the potential violation of Article 21 could be examined based on several aspects:

• Right to safe working conditions: The collapse of the tunnel raises concerns about the safety of working conditions for the construction workers. Article 21 encompasses the right to work in an environment that is free from hazards and risks to life. The government and the contractors involved could be held accountable for ensuring the safety of the workers.
• Negligence and accountability: The collapse of the tunnel may involve questions of negligence on the part of those responsible for its construction. If it is established that the collapse occurred due to negligence or inadequate safety measures, it could be seen as a violation of the right to life under Article 21.
• Right to speedy and effective rescue operations: Article 21 also includes the right to speedy and effective rescue operations in case of emergencies. The government's response and the efficiency of the rescue operations are critical in this regard. Delays or inefficiencies in the rescue operations may be viewed as a violation of this right.
• Inadequate infrastructure planning: The lack of escape shafts and the construction of the tunnel along a geological fault, as mentioned in the incident, may indicate inadequate planning and a disregard for the safety of the workers. Such negligence could be examined in the context of Article 21.
• Duty of the state: The State, being a party to the construction project and responsible for the safety of its citizens, has a duty to ensure that infrastructure projects are executed with due diligence and consideration for potential risks.

Several case laws have established and expanded upon the interpretation of Article 21:

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, and it is the obligation of the State to ensure conditions where individuals can live with human dignity.

In the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the right to a safe environment as part of the right to life. The court held that the right to life includes the right to enjoyment of pollution-free water and air.

The principle of absolute liability was established in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986), where industries engaged in hazardous activities were held absolutely liable for any harm caused to the environment and individuals.

Labor Law provisions ensuring compensation for victims of the incident:
In the context of the incident at the Silkyara Bend Barkot tunnel in Uttarakhand, India, various provisions of labor laws in India can be considered to assure compensation to the victims. The compensation and rights of workers in such situations are safeguarded under multiple labor laws:

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923:
This act provides for compensation to workers in case of injury or death during the course of employment. The compensation is payable irrespective of any negligence or fault on the part of the employer. The dependents of the deceased workers are entitled to receive compensation.

Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Laws:
The Factories Act, 1948, and other relevant OSH laws lay down regulations regarding the safety and working conditions in factories and construction sites. Employers are obligated to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of workers, including the provision of first aid facilities and emergency exits.

Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970:
This act regulates the employment of contract labor and ensures that contract workers receive the same benefits and conditions as regular employees. In case of any mishap, both the principal employer and the contractor are jointly responsible for providing compensation and benefits.

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948:
This act provides for certain benefits, including medical benefits, to employees in case of sickness, disablement, or death due to employment injury. It covers employees earning less than a specified amount and provides financial support during times of crisis.

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972:
In the unfortunate event of fatalities, the families of the deceased workers may be entitled to gratuity under this Act, which provides a lump sum amount as a gesture of gratitude for the services rendered.

National Disaster Management Act, 2005:
Given the scale of the incident, this Act allows for compensation and relief measures in case of disasters. The victims and their families can benefit from the provisions of this Act.

Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996:

This act aims to regulate the employment and conditions of service of building and construction workers. It mandates the provision of safety measures, including personal protective equipment, and ensures welfare measures for workers.

Compensation under the NHIDCL (National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited):

Being a project under NHIDCL, the organization may have specific provisions for compensation and assistance to workers affected by accidents or incidents during the construction phase.

Legal precedents and case studies: Examining Similar Incidents and their legal outcomes:
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, 1992 AIR 248, 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 251:

Fact: In 1934, Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) was established in India, and in 1970, a pesticide plant was set up in Bhopal. On December 2-3, 1984, a toxic gas leak from UCIL caused a major disaster, resulting in approximately 20,000 casualties and 60,000 people suffering irreversible damage.

Legal Issues: The case questioned the validity of the settlement order by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, focusing on the justifiability of the settlement amount and the dropping of criminal proceedings against Union Carbide.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court ordered Union Carbide Corporation to pay $470 million to India as a full settlement for the Bhopal gas disaster. All civil proceedings were concluded, and criminal proceedings were canceled. The judgment, criticized for quashing criminal proceedings, raised concerns about the value of lives in India compared to the rest of the world.

Subhash kumar vs State of Bihar and others, 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5:
Fact: The petitioner filed a public interest litigation against West Bokaro Collieries and TISCO, alleging they polluted the Bokaro river by dumping waste, making water unfit for consumption and irrigation. The petitioner sought urgent measures to prevent pollution and legal action against TISCO under the Water Act of 1974.

Legal issue:

1. Can the petitioner file a Public Interest Litigation?
2. Is the Bokaro river contaminated by slurry discharge from the respondents' washeries?
    

Judgment: The Supreme Court, in a separate case, addressed environmental degradation. It ordered industries, including TISCO, to switch to safer fuels, recognized workers' rights, and mandated compensation for lost wages during relocation. The specific case regarding the Bokaro river was not addressed in the provided information.

MC Mehta vs Union of India, 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819:
Fact: M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition under Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution, seeking the closure of Shriram Food and Fertilizer due to its hazardous manufacturing in a densely populated area. A gas leak during the petition caused fatalities and health issues. A year post the Bhopal disaster, the incident raised concerns reminiscent of the tragedy. Factories closed before the Environment (Protection) Act, becoming a precedent for effective legislation.

Issues:

1. Should hazardous industries operate in densely populated areas?
2. If allowed, what regulatory mechanisms should be in place?
3. How to determine liability and compensation?
    

Judgment: The court acknowledged the economic role of hazardous industries but decided to relocate them to less populated areas to minimize risks. A national policy was recommended to ensure safe plant locations and community protection.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Uttarakhand Tunnel Collapse underscores the legal intricacies surrounding liability, compensation, and justice in the outcome of such incidents. The collapse, rooted in geological complexities and inadequate safety measures, prompts a closer look at environmental law principles, government liability, and the application of various IPC sections. The potential violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, safeguarding the right to life and safety, adds a human rights dimension.

Labor laws, including the Workmen's Compensation Act and Occupational Safety and Health laws, play a crucial role in ensuring compensation and protection for workers. The incident calls for a comprehensive examination of construction practices, faithfulness to safety protocols, and the need for legal frameworks to uphold the well-being of workers and the environment.

References:

• https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/governance/uttarakhand-tunnel-collapse-caused-by-a-lapse-in-judgement-92980
• https://www.science.org/content/article/indian-government-ignored-repeated-warnings-scientists-massive-tunnel-collapse
• https://www.deccanherald.com/india/uttarakhand/uttarkashi-tunnel-collapse-exposes-callous-attitude-towards-workers-safety-trade-unions-2781576
• https://www.thequint.com/opinion/uttarkashi-tunnel-collapse-we-ignored-nature-and-science-evaded-our-own-laws#read-more
• https://www.britsafe.in/safety-management-news/2023/himalayan-tunnel-collapse-safety-in-the-spotlight
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/uttarakhand-tunnel-collapse-live-updates-uttarkashi-silkyara-rescue-operation-november-23-101700698759288.html
• https://www.financialexpress.com/business/infrastructure-lessons-learned-the-hard-way-after-silkyara-tunnel-collapse-in-uttarkashi-nhai-to-conduct-safety-audits-of-all-under-construction-tunnels-nationwide-3316695/
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1985812
• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/india-officials-consider-new-methods-to-rescue-41-workers-still-trapped-in-collapsed-tunnel
• https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-occupational-safety-health-and-working-conditions-code-2019

Also Read:

• Who Is Legally Liable For The Uttarakhand Tunnel Collapse?

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Disha Sania

Authentication No: MR445362000393-27-0324