Abstract
The Uttarkashi floods, exemplified by the devastation of Dharali village near Gangotri, highlight the growing vulnerability of Himalayan ecosystems to both natural forces and human-induced pressures. While intense monsoon rainfall triggered the disaster, its magnitude was amplified by unregulated construction on riverbeds, large-scale deforestation, and poorly planned infrastructure projects within the Bhagirathi Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ). This paper examines the floods through the dual framework of environmental law and the constitutional responsibilities of the State, arguing that such calamities are not simply natural occurrences but symptoms of systemic governance failures.
Despite comprehensive statutory provisions under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the ESZ notification of 2012, implementation remains weak and fragmented. The lack of strict regulation has allowed unsustainable tourism, road expansion, and hydropower development to proceed in ecologically fragile terrain, diminishing the region’s natural resilience to disasters.
The study further situates these failures within constitutional principles such as Article 21, which extends the right to life to include a healthy environment, and Article 48A, which obliges the State to protect and improve forests and wildlife. Environmental doctrines like the Public Trust, Precautionary Principle, and Sustainable Development reinforce the duty of governments to balance economic growth with ecological preservation. The analysis concludes that the Uttarkashi floods represent a crisis of governance as much as a climatic or geological event. Addressing these risks requires stronger state accountability, robust enforcement of environmental laws, and an urgent rethinking of development models in the fragile Himalayan region.
Key words: Uttarkashi floods, Himalayan ecology, Environment, Sustainable development, Eco-Sensitive Zone.
Introduction
In Dharali, a Himalayan village close to the Gangotri pilgrimage route, on August 5, a river overflowed after continuous rain, destroying homes and futures. This kind of calamity wasn’t the first in the area. Thin streams were formed down the slopes as a result of the constant monsoon rain tapping on houses. A wall of mud, rock, and water ripped through Dharali hours later. Dharali lies beside the sacred Ganga River source in the upper hills of Uttarakhand, close to Gangotri. However, the river blew up roads, smashed into houses, and washed away everything in its path that day. Families ran away empty-handed. People lost their lives.
Flash floods occur when water levels suddenly rise during or right after periods of heavy precipitation. These are brief, highly localized events that usually happen six hours after rainfall. Alterations in the glacier’s volume, variations in the lake’s water level, and earthquakes are some of the causes of these floods.
The most recent in Uttarakhand’s terrible sequence of natural disasters is the flash flood that destroyed Dharali town this week. Over the past ten years, the hill state has had 705 fatalities from landslides and flash floods, with 389 fatalities from flash floods alone, according to disaster management data. Environmentalists believe that uncontrolled development and human interference in the ecologically delicate Bhagirathi Eco-Sensitive Zone (BESZ), which is 4,179 sq. km from Gaumukh to Uttarkashi, may have greatly exacerbated the effects of the flood that devastated Dharali village near Gangotri in Uttarkashi district. In one of the most susceptible areas of the Himalayas, experts say the extent of the destruction suggests deeper, systemic problems stemming from years of unchecked development.
The novel aspect is that risk has increased due to human activity. The natural potential of the terrain to recover has been diminished by the development of hotels on riverbeds, the cutting of highways without drainage, and the clearing of forests. The disaster isn’t just the rain; it’s also the careless expansion into flood-prone areas. The risk is a result of carelessness and avarice rather than a natural occurrence.
- Reckless Development and Its Ecological Costs
“We need to wake up and stop playing with our environment,” said Mallika Bhanot, a member of the BESZ monitoring committee, who called for immediate reforms and stronger enforcement of land-use restrictions along the Bhagirathi River and its tributaries. Any region that is at risk has to be conserved and protected. The risk is only increased by uncontrolled anthropogenic (human-induced environmental change) activity, as demonstrated by the startling video of the Kheer Ganga stream turning into a torrent. Similar worries were expressed by other ecologists, who noted that extensive building in floodplains can affect local microclimates by interfering with natural drainage, hastening soil degradation, and increasing carbon emissions.
Nearly 50,000 hectares of forest area have been lost to development projects like mining, hydropower, tourism, and urbanization since Uttarakhand became a state 25 years ago. That’s equivalent to losing seven football fields of forest every day. More than fifty thousand trees have had to be cut down for projects like the Char Dham all-weather road, which is 900 kilometers long. Under Kedarnath, tunnels are being planned. There will be a 125-kilometer rail line soon. These aren’t just initiatives; what matters is how brutally they’re carried out. Contractors are disregarding ecological warnings, blasting delicate mountains, and taking shortcuts. The goal of compensatory afforestation is to replace lost forests, although it rarely succeeds. There is an urgent need to reconsider the development approach.
Anoop nautiyal a social activist also commented that “Coming to Uttarakhand let me add that the same reckless patterns exist here too of unplanned construction, massive deforestation, land use changes, encroachments, over-tourism, vanishing rivers, ignored environmental laws, multi-storey hotels in landslide zones and waste piling up in fragile areas as in Himachal.” Hasn’t Kedarnath, Chamoli, Joshimath, Sirobagdad, Kwarab, Yamunotri, and today’s Dharali and Sukhi Top served as enough wake-up calls in terms of warnings and signals? Have any of these had a significant impact on the state’s development trajectory? If anything, the numerous risky policies and programs in place are only speeding up ecological collapse, deforestation, and development.
Locals also think that the drive to increase tourism-related income is encouraging unsustainable growth. “Tree cutting and building are occurring on a never-before-seen scale in the competition to profit from tourism. “Even though the area has previously experienced similar devastating floods, there are no strong systems in place to manage disasters in vulnerable stretches of BESZ,” stated Suresh Bhai, an environmentalist from Uttarkashi who founded the Himalaya Bachao Andolan.
- Environmental Law Framework in India
1. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974. The explicit goal of this Act is to stop and manage water pollution, especially that which occurs in rivers. It creates Central and State Pollution Control Boards (CPCB, SPCB) to regulate effluent discharge, monitor water quality, and prosecute infractions. For instance, polluting industries must establish effluent treatment facilities, and polluters who release untreated waste into waterways may be subject to fines.
2.The 1986 Environment (Protection) Act: Water bodies are included in the broad framework for environmental protection provided by this Act. It gives the government the authority to establish guidelines, control operations, and even close down or limit the operations of polluting units, including those that damage rivers.
Implemented by the Ministry of Jal Shakti, the National River Conservation Plan (NRCP) focuses on conservation and pollution reduction strategies for important rivers. Water quality is monitored, community awareness is raised, and infrastructure improvements like sewage treatment and river cleaning are supported.
3. Current Lawmaking Projects The 2019 River (Quality Preservation and Pollution Elimination) Bill: In addition to restricting industrial discharges and imposing mandatory cleaning procedures on rivers, this draft bill also aims to raise awareness of the risks of river pollution and prohibit contamination within a two-kilometer buffer zone along rivers. A River Conservation Committee made up of both government representatives and outside specialists is also established to supervise enforcement.
4. Ecologically Sensitive Zones Rivers may be surrounded by eco-sensitive zones created by The Environment Protection Act of 1986. Activities are classified as either restricted, regulated, or permitted in these areas. To preserve river health, for example, construction, industry, and trash disposal are usually prohibited.
5. CRZ, or the Coastal Regulation Zone The CRZ Notification, which outlaws or severely restricts activity in ecologically fragile riverine areas, particularly those close to the shore or estuaries, applies to tidal-influenced river segments. Extending hundreds of meters inland from the high tide line, these designated zones are off-limits to new building and untreated trash disposal.
3. Constitution and environment law Principles
Article 48A: Directive Principle for Environmental Protection, introduced by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, directs the State to “protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.” This article directs state policy and law, making environmental stewardship a primary governmental obligation even though it is not immediately enforceable in court. This clause requires states to enact laws to reduce the negative effects of building on the environment in environmentally delicate regions, such the hills. This constitutional requirement leads to regulations on land usage, building rules, and deforestation.
Article 21: Right to Life Includes Right to Environment, guarantee of life and liberty has, through judicial interpretation, been expanded to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. The Supreme Court has made it clear that this right depends on clean air and water, and consequently, on effective ecological management. When building projects in hilly regions endanger the environment, public health, or local livelihoods, courts have stepped in to stop or restrict them. Article 21 of the Constitution allows for constitutional challenges to any state action or omission that permits careless hill development.
Public Trust Doctrine
Environment law Principle: Emerged from cases like M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, this doctrine holds that the state is the legal trustee of natural resources including mountains, forests, rivers for the public good. These resources must not be exploited for private gain but managed for sustainable, equitable public benefit. Courts have invoked the theory to stop state officials from authorizing projects that prioritize long-term sustainability over immediate profit, such as roads, dams, and resorts that alter ecologically delicate hill terrains or reroute rivers.
Precautionary Principle
Even when there is scientific doubt regarding possible implications, steps must be taken to prevent environmental harm. The onus is on the state or developer to demonstrate the safety of an activity. The precautionary principle calls on authorities to foresee possible harm and take preventive measures, particularly in hilly areas where the dangers of landslides, deforestation, or floods are unexpected. When expected hazards potentially jeopardize people’s right to a healthy environment, courts have ordered halts to quarrying and development around environmentally sensitive lakes and hills.
Sustainable development principal
These legal and constitutional principles compel the state to balance development needs with environmental constraints, especially in sensitive zones. Future hill development must integrate ecological risk assessments, limit construction in hazard-prone areas, and preserve forests and watersheds core elements of sustainable development under the Indian constitutional framework.
Enforcing Sustainable Development courts have repeatedly invoked Articles 48A, 21, and the Precautionary Public Trust Doctrine to quash permissions for construction projects that threaten fragile hill ecosystems. Compel government agencies to enforce stricter environmental clearances and disaster management measures.
Ensure that the “precautionary principle” and “sustainable development” underpin all hill development projects, so new constructions account for risks like landslides, erosion, or flooding.
Relevance to Recent Uttarkashi Floods
Root Causes: Unplanned construction, riverbed encroachment, deforestation, and disregard of ecological limits have exacerbated hill disasters like the Uttarkashi floods. Builders and governments often bypass or minimize environmental safeguards, increasing vulnerability to floods and landslides. Post-flood, courts and tribunals are poised to use these constitutional provisions to scrutinize prior permissions, hold authorities accountable, order restoration efforts, and direct preventive policy shifts to protect the region’s environment and residents.
4. State Responsibility
The floods in Uttarkashi have brought to light the intricate relationship between India’s statutory requirements, environmental governance, and constitutional obligations. The catastrophe is not merely a result of nature; rather, it is a reflection of systemic shortcomings in the application of the law, especially in the Bhagirathi Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ).
- Legal Requirements and the Bhagirathi Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) The Bhagirathi ESZ, which spans 100 km along the Ganga from Gaumukh to Uttarkashi, was declared by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in 2012 in order to protect the delicate Himalayan environment. The announcement specifically mandated that the Uttarakhand State Government create a Zonal Master Plan (ZMP) based on a watershed approach. Despite this framework, implementation has remained weak and fragmented. Construction in floodplains, unchecked tourism infrastructure, and major road projects such as the Char Dham all-weather highway have proceeded in open violation of ESZ norms. These violations not only Contravene the legal mandate of the notification but also reflect an erosion of state accountability in environmental governance.
- Constitutional Responsibilities of the State: The Indian Constitution places primary responsibility for water resources and flood management on state governments. Entry 17, List II (State List) under the Seventh Schedule assigns states jurisdiction over water supplies, irrigation, canals, drainage, embankments, water storage, and water power.
As a result, states are required by the constitution to control flood risks, control floodplain zoning, and implement anti-erosion measures. The central government’s involvement is primarily advisory, even if it is aided by the Central Water Commission (CWC) and the NDMA Act of 2005’s disaster management recommendations. Because of this disparity, state governments have an increased need to guarantee both preventative measures.
- Constitutional Duties: Article 48A: Inserted via the 42nd Amendment, Article 48A is a Directive Principle of State Policy which mandates that “The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.” Though not directly enforceable in courts, it guides legislative and policy actions, making environmental protection a central state obligation.
Article 21: This article guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Starting from the Dehradun Quarrying Case (Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP[1]), Indian courts interpreted “life” to mean a life lived with dignity, including the right to a clean and healthy environment. Subsequent rulings, such as in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, [2]explicitly stated that the right to pollution-free water and air is part of Article 21.
5. Legal gaps and enforcement issues
Despite the constitutional and statutory framework, Uttarakhand has consistently failed to regulate development in ecologically sensitive regions.
In Dharali village, Uttarkashi, hotels, guest homes, and roadside eateries were built directly on floodplains, which are areas that are typically thought to be vulnerable to river surges. These structures constructions altered the Bhagirathi’s natural course, forcing the river to swiften and scour the banks more intensely. Retaining walls, or protective walls, typically disperse water in unanticipated ways, causing further damage downstream. The river had taken it back, not altered its path.
Unregulated Construction: Proliferation of hotels, roads, and hydropower projects without comprehensive environmental impact assessments (EIAs) or adherence to ESZ restrictions. Governance Issues & Gaps Uttarakhand has implemented the Floodplain Zoning Act, which creates restricted and forbidden zones along dangerous river segments. However, there is little actual enforcement, and authorities usually regularize offenses after the fact. Multiple infractions have been reported by the Eco-Sensitive Zone monitoring body, including multi-story hotels on the Ganga’s banks and helipad constructions. These investigations, which point out flaws in institutional accountability, rarely result in corrective action. For infrastructure projects, Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are frequently skipped or performed insufficiently.
The Border Roads Organization, for instance, said that some road-widening segments did not require an EIA. Poor administration and a lack of deterrence for offenders are indicated by the growth in unlicensed and informal tourism establishments (Maggi stalls, guesthouses, and ashrams), many of which are built without environmental permits.
Char Dham Highway Project: Undertaken despite objections by environmental experts and pending litigation before the Supreme Court, this project illustrates the tension between developmental imperatives and environmental safeguards. Weak Enforcement of ZMP: The Zonal Master Plan, a legally binding instrument, has been ignored or diluted in practice, with minimal oversight by the Monitoring Committee.
Neglect of Disaster Preparedness: Flood zoning and drainage systems have remained inadequate, leaving communities vulnerable to predictable climate and hydrological risks. Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court and National Green Tribunal (NGT), have consistently addressed environmental protection failures and enforced strong judicial measures against violators.
6. landmark judgements
In the Vanashakti v Union of India (2024-2025)[3]
Vanashakti v Union of India (2024-2025) decision, the Supreme Court struck down the 2017 notification and 2021 memorandums that allowed for retrospective (“ex-post facto”) environmental clearances for projects begun without prior approval. The Court declared such retrospective clearances illegal, reinforcing a zero-tolerance policy for violations and upholding the principle that environmental compliance must be present from project inception. The judgment clarified that Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution includes the right to a clean environment, prohibiting future regularization of violations through executive notifications. The Court has frequently reprimanded both central and state governments for failing to effectively penalize violators, criticized leniency in enforcement, and demanded stricter rules for environmental compensation and more robust procedures under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ; Supreme Court of India[4]
This case is also known as the ‘Dehradun Valley Litigation’. In the Mussoorie hills of the Himalayas, quarrying operations were conducted by blasting limestone out of the mountains using dynamite. This process led to dangerous cave-ins and landslides because the mining extended deep into the hillsides—actions that were illegal by nature. The absence of vegetation made the slopes even more prone to landslides, resulting in the loss of villagers’ lives, destruction of homes, and devastation of cattle and farmland.
When the issue reached the courts, mining operators argued that the matter should fall under the jurisdiction of administrative authorities empowered by the Environment Protection Act, rather than the judiciary. However, the court dismissed these claims, noting that the legal proceedings had already begun and important directives had been made before the Act was enacted.
To oversee compliance, a monitoring committee was established. Despite the committee’s directions, the mining company ignored its instructions and continued quarrying in a reckless and unscientific manner. When the monitoring committee raised the issue with the court, it was found that Vijay Shree Mines had caused significant harm to the environment. The court ordered the company to pay ₹3 lakhs to the monitoring committee’s fund.
After several years, the Supreme Court ruled that quarrying-related pollution adversely impacted public health and safety, warranting an immediate halt to such activities. The Court emphasized that the right to a healthy environment is integral to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. This case was notable as it required the Supreme Court to weigh environmental and ecological concerns against industrial exploitation of forest resources for the first time.
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)[5]
The Supreme Court dealt with the failure of states and union territories to enforce the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Recognizing the ecological importance of coasts, the Court directed all coastal states and UTs to prepare Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs), classify coastal stretches, and strictly regulate/prohibit harmful activities.
It held that the CZMPs are binding statutory documents once approved by the Central Government. State inaction in implementing environmental laws is unacceptable and unconstitutional, as environmental degradation violates the Right to Life under Article 21. The State is a trustee of natural resources (Public Trust Doctrine) and must protect coasts for public benefit.
Conclusion
A clear reminder of the precarious equilibrium between ecology and development in the Himalayan belt is provided by the floods in Uttarkashi. The devastation in Dharali village is an example of how persistent human interference is pushing once-resilient mountain systems over their limits. The combined effects of careless building, ill-planned infrastructure, and forest cover loss turned what should have been a natural hazard into a massive catastrophe. This suggests a more serious governance deficiency, whereby regulations are in place in theory but institutional oversight and accountability are still lacking.
The real challenge is not drafting more laws but ensuring credible implementation of existing protections. India’s constitutional vision of a healthy environment, coupled with statutory safeguards, provides a solid foundation. Yet unless these frameworks translate into tangible, ground-level action, ecological fragility will continue to turn into human loss. The Uttarkashi floods therefore symbolize not just a climate event but also a failure of policy execution and foresight. The only way for is to create impartial oversight organizations with the authority to punish eco-regulation infractions.
Reference
- Shivani Azad, Uttarkashi disaster: Unchecked construction, tourism push & human interference, Times of India(Aug 6, 2025), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/unregulated-activity-added-to-dharali-devastation-experts/articleshow/123127074.cms
- Abhishek Ranjan Bhardwaj & Balwinder Singh, A Critical Analysis of India’s Disaster Management Framework: Addressing Gaps and Enhancing Financial Resource Management, 14 EUR. ECON. LETT. 1977 (2024)
- Regulator framework for environment protection in India, University of Technology, https://www.universityoftechnology.edu.in/blog/regulatory-framework-for-environment-protection-in-india/(last visited Aug. 21, 2025)
- Important principles of environment law, LawBhoomi,
https://lawbhoomi.com/important-principles-of-environmental-law/ (last visited Aug. 21, 2025)
- National Policy on Disaster Management, available at, https://ndma.gov.in/ima ges/guidelines/national-dm-Policy2009.pdf, 2009
- Vanashakti v. Union of India, (2025) INSC 718, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949293/ accessed Aug. 21, 2025).
- Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 652 (1985), available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949293/ (accessed Aug. 21, 2025)
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949293/ (accessed Aug. 21, 2025)
Submitted by:
Anuja Panwar
BA. LL.B(H)
Graphic Era Hill University, Dehradun
[1] 1985 AIR 652
[2] 1991 AIR 420
[3] 2025 INSC 718
[4] 1985 AIR 652
[5] 1996 AIR 1446