- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Kerala High Court
- /
- 'Preservation Of Periyar Vital But...
'Preservation Of Periyar Vital But No Breakthrough': Kerala High Court Presses For Urgent Cleaning Of River, Its Tributary
Anamika MJ
12 Sept 2025 3:55 PM IST
The Kerala High Court has expressed dissatisfaction over the continued delay in ameliorating the contamination of Periyar River, particularly at the Kuzhikandam Thodu stretch.A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was hearing a batch of petitions concerning pollution in the river, particularly Kuzhikandam thodu- its tributary. A.X. Varghese,...
The Kerala High Court has expressed dissatisfaction over the continued delay in ameliorating the contamination of Periyar River, particularly at the Kuzhikandam Thodu stretch.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was hearing a batch of petitions concerning pollution in the river, particularly Kuzhikandam thodu- its tributary.
A.X. Varghese, counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, submitted two alternative proposals: that setting up a new effluent treatment plant (ETP), as now proposed by the State Government, was unnecessary; and that the remediation could instead be undertaken by the 11th respondent, Kerala Enviro Infrastructure Limited (KEIL), which he argued has the expertise to decontaminate the affected area.
However, the Senior Government Pleader countered this position, stating that KEIL lacked the technical capacity to handle contamination on such a large scale. He maintained that establishment of the proposed ETP was therefore imperative.
Supporting this view, counsel for the Kerala Pollution Control Board (KPCB) informed the Bench that the proposed ETP is to be constructed on 75 cents of land requisitioned from the erstwhile Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. (HIL). Once the land is formally transferred from the Union Government to Kerala, the construction would proceed based on a detailed project report under the supervision of both the KPCB and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
The KPCB also disclosed that funds have already been collected from certain defaulting companies, including HIL, under the "polluter pays" principle, and deposited for remediation efforts.
Noting the paradox of an undisputed need for remediation but prolonged inaction, the Bench orally remarked, "Preservation of Periyar river is vitally important…. However this matter has been pending for several months without any breakthrough in this regard.”
The Court then issued a set of specific directions which are as follows:
- The Government of Kerala must immediately examine A.X. Varghese's proposal regarding KEIL's role in decontaminating Kuzhikandam Thodu and place a report on feasibility before the next hearing.
- Government of India must take a final decision on the transfer of the 75 cents of land—either permanently or on a long-term basis—for the purpose of constructing the ETP and report back without delay.
- Central Pollution Control Board must apprise the Court of its role in the construction and operation of the ETP, including applicable guidelines and modalities.
- Kerala State Pollution Control Board must disclose details of all funds collected in relation to the Kuzhikandam Thodu contamination, including contributions from defaulting industries, and explain how these resources will be utilized for the ETP.
The Court also noted submissions from T. Ravi, standing counsel for Kerala Pollution Control Board who stated that nearly 40% of the Central Government's contribution under the Clean Energy Fund had lapsed. The Bench directed the authorities to ensure that all eligible funds are secured and utilized appropriately.
The case is posted on Monday for further considerations.
Case Title - Periyar Malineekarana Virudha Samithi v State of Kerala and connected cases and connected Matters
Case No - WP(C) 996/ 2012 and Connected Matters
Counsel for Petitioners - K K Ashkar, Ashira Mohamed Ashrof, Mathew A Kuzhalnadan, Kuriakose Varghese, K R Arun Krishnan, Sudeep Aravind Panicker, V Shyamohan, K M George, Chithra P George, Mathews P George, Sneha Harisankar, Sureshkumar M, A V Jojo, B M Jeevan Raj, A X Varghese, Harisankar S, Sherry J Thomas, Joemon Antony, Antony Nilton Remelo, Renish Raveendran, Thaman Bai, P J Unnikrishnan, Ligish Xavier, Gokul Devis, Riyan Augustine Shaji, Amal M
Counsel for Respondents - N Ajith, Geetha P Menon, R Suraj Kumar, P B Subramnyan, Dinesh R Shenoy, R V Rahul, Lijin Thamban, George Cherian, Lal K Joseph, T Naveen, K T Thomas, K M George, C Dinesh, M Ajay, M Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K John Mathai, Jason Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C Abraham, Raja Kannan, Pranoy Harilal, Tesin Mathew, K S Arun Kumar, Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, Archana K S, Mohammed Shafi K, Noel Elias, P M Johny, Justine Jacob, Prakash M P, T K Ajithkumar,
Amicus Curiae - Ananthakrishnan A Kartha