Members of the civil society have questioned supreme court’s directive to the government asking it to implement the controversial river linking project in a time bound manner and to appoint a high powered committee to plan and implement it.

“The judgment gives categorical directions to the executive government on a matter which is clearly in the executive domain, namely the implementation of a particular project,” said a signed statement from prominent members of the civil society, including supreme court lawyer Prashant Bhusan, Manoj Mishra, Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan, Himanshu Thakkrar from South Asia Network of Dams and Rivers, JNU professor Arun Kumar and Ashish Nandy from Centre for study of developing society.

The SC on February 27 had rubbished central government’s argument about lack of consensus amongst states on the project directing it to implement the project.

The other objections raised in the statement include

*The judgment gives direction to implement the ‘project’, i.e., the grand design as a whole, at a time when none of the thirty projects that constitute that grand design has gone through the processes of examination, evaluation and approval and received final sanction. In fact, even the earlier stage of project formulation has not been completed in most cases; only three of the thirty projects have reached the Detailed Project Stage, and even these are not final.

* By declaring the project to be in the national interest it not only anticipates the result of the examination that is yet to take place, but also makes it extremely difficult for the various government agencies and ministries to undertake a rigorous and objective examination.

* Its reference to “the unanimous view of all experts” that the project is “in the national interest” is patently untrue, because there is a substantial body of expert opinion that is highly critical of the project. Such a serious error would not have occurred if there had been consultations with scholars of various disciplines who have given thought to the matter.

* It fails to take note of, or treats lightly, the strong dissent on the part of several State Governments.