The Kerala High Court has struck down the Vizhinjam Coastal Erosion Expert Committee constituted by the State, finding that the inclusion of two members with prior links to the port project raised real concerns of conflict of interest, and has ordered that the committee’s report, which found no erosion, should not be acted upon.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Friday, October 30, declared flawed the constitution of the Expert Committee appointed by the State Government under a Government Order dated October 6, 2022 to examine whether the Vizhinjam International Deepwater Multipurpose Seaport has caused coastal erosion, held that the committee’s final report shall not be acted upon, and directed the State to constitute a fresh and independent Expert Committee whose members have no conflict of interest [Nirmala Johny and Others v. State of Kerala and Others].
Justice Harisankar V. Menon allowed the writ petition filed in 2022 by residents of fishing villages lying within about 20 kilometres north of Vizhinjam, who alleged that the construction of the seaport, particularly its breakwaters, had caused erosion on the northern side and accretion on the southern side of the coast.
The case
The petitioners told the Court that construction activities linked to the seaport had severely affected the northern coastline, damaging homes and traditional livelihoods. According to the petition, several residents had lost their houses or suffered extensive damage, creating what they described as an existential crisis for fishing communities.
Their main challenge was to the Expert Committee constituted by the State through the Government Order of October 6, 2022, issued pursuant to directions of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The committee was chaired by M.D. Kudale, former Additional Director of the Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS), Pune, and was tasked with examining whether erosion had occurred because of the port construction and with identifying remedial measures. The committee concluded that the port had not caused coastal erosion.
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the committee was fundamentally flawed because some of its members had earlier professional associations with the project or entities connected with it. The petitioners pointed out that M.D. Kudale had served as an expert member of the Technical Sub-Committee for the development of the Vizhinjam Seaport, and that his own 2010 research article, “Impact of Port Development on the Coastline and the Need for Protection”, had observed that port development leads to accumulation on the updrift side and erosion on the downdrift side.
They also alleged that another member, Dr. P.V. Chandramohan, had been associated with Navayuga Engineering Company Limited as its President (Technical), a company stated to have business links with Adani Enterprises. The petitioners further questioned the inclusion of Dr. Riji K. John, whose appointment as Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies had been quashed, and pointed out that the committee had made only one site inspection, on May 23, 2023, before preparing its report.
The State and the port’s stand
The State Government contended that the erosion was attributable to high wave activity and cyclonic conditions along the western coast, not the seaport, and that the project lies between two rocky promontories, which keeps longshore sediment transport minimal. It added that rehabilitation schemes had been extended to affected residents and that several petitioners had already received benefits.
Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited maintained that the project was of strategic national importance and had secured all statutory approvals, and argued that its environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone clearances had already been upheld by the NGT. The project concessionaire said extensive environmental studies had preceded the clearances. The respondents also raised delay and laches, saying the petitioners claimed erosion since 2016 but approached the Court only in 2022.
What the Court said
The Court rejected the objection of delay, noting that the writ petition was linked to the very committee the State itself had constituted in October 2022.
“This Court is of the opinion that in the light of the Government Order at Ext.P11 issued as above, the allegation of delay and laches raised by the respondents is only to be repelled.”
Referring to Union of India v. Kushala Shetty and National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited, the Court reiterated that judicial review of major infrastructure projects is limited. It clarified, however, that it was not interfering with the implementation of the Vizhinjam project, as the petitioners had expressly said they were not seeking a stay of construction. Its scrutiny was confined to the legality of the committee and the validity of its report.
Relying on N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India and A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, the Court asked whether reasonable grounds existed to believe that a member was likely to be biased. It found considerable substance in the allegations about M.D. Kudale, noting that his earlier engagement with the port’s Technical Sub-Committee was not disputed.
“As already noticed, Sri.Kudale is stated to have been working as an expert member of the sub committee constituted for the development of Vizhinjam Seaport. If, as a matter of fact, he was so engaged, this Court is of the opinion that inclusion of Sri.Kudale in the Committee constituted pursuant to Ext.P11 Government Order ought to have been avoided.”
The Court noted that the committee’s final report stood in stark contrast to the view in M.D. Kudale‘s 2010 article, while making clear that it was not ruling on the scientific correctness of the report.
“Though this Court is not called upon to consider the acceptability or otherwise of the findings contained in the ultimate report of the Committee constituted pursuant to Ext.P11, this Court has made reference to the opinion of Sri.Kudale as above, contained in Ext.P5(a) only in the light of the uncontroverted allegation of conflict of interest raised by the petitioners herein.”
On Dr. P.V. Chandramohan, the Court observed that the allegations about his association with a company connected to the concessionaire had not been effectively denied. It declined, however, to fault the inclusion of Dr. Riji K. John, holding that the quashing of his appointment as Vice Chancellor did not by itself disqualify him from serving on the committee.
The State had argued that a separate NGT-appointed committee monitoring shoreline changes made the Kudale Committee’s report unnecessary. The petitioners countered that the NGT panel was only vetting reports prepared by agencies engaged by the concessionaire. The Court held that, having itself constituted a committee to examine the erosion allegations, the Government could not ask that its defects be overlooked because another monitoring body existed.
The directions
Finding that the prior professional involvement of certain members, together with the limited site inspection and the circumstances in which the report was prepared, raised sufficient concerns about the committee’s independence, the Court allowed the writ petition. It declared the constitution of the committee flawed, held that its final report shall not be acted upon, and directed the State Government to constitute an independent Expert Committee to carry out the studies contemplated by the October 6, 2022 Government Order, ensuring that the proposed members have no conflict of interest. The fresh committee is to be constituted taking into account the observations in the judgment and the views of the stakeholders concerned.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling applies a settled rule of administrative law to environmental fact-finding: a body asked to assess the impact of a project must not only be independent but must be seen to be independent. Under the test in A.K. Kraipak, the question is not whether bias is proved but whether there is a reasonable likelihood of it, and the Court found that test met where a member had earlier worked on the very project under study.
The judgment is also careful about its limits. The Court did not halt the port, did not reopen the environmental clearances, and did not decide whether the port has caused erosion. It set aside only the process, leaving the scientific question to a fresh, conflict-free committee, which keeps judicial review within its traditional bounds while giving coastal communities an independent assessment of their grievance.
Case Title: Nirmala Johny and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [WP(C) No. 34157 of 2022]
Bench: Justice Harisankar V. Menon, Kerala High Court
Date of Judgment: October 30, 2026
Counsel for Petitioners: Prashant Bhushan, Ajit Joy, Sayujya Radhakrishnan, Aneesh James
Counsel for Respondents: V.J. Mathew (Sr.), Vipin P. Varghese (SC, Vizhinjam International Seaport), N. Manoj Kumar and Anoop V. Nair (State Attorneys), Roshen D. Alexander, K.R. Ranjith and others