The Ken-Betwa Link Project has come under judicial scrutiny in a public interest litigation, with the Madhya Pradesh High Court asking the State to clarify the status of the Supreme Court proceedings and the action taken on the report of the Central Empowered Committee.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday sought the State’s response on the report of the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in a public interest litigation concerning the Ken-Betwa Link Project, while declining to set up a grievance redressal committee for affected people and expressing reluctance to intervene in matters already before the Supreme Court [Arihant Tiwari v. Union of India].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain heard the petition, which was argued by the petitioner in person. The matter will be taken up next on October 13.
The petition
The petitioner, Arihant Tiwari, a Jabalpur-based advocate, approached the High Court over the impact of the project on the Panna Tiger Reserve, the downstream Ken Gharial Sanctuary and the communities likely to be displaced. The Ken-Betwa Link Project is intended to transfer water from the Ken basin to the Betwa basin through the Daudhan Dam and a link canal. The Union Cabinet approved its funding and implementation on December 8, 2021, at an estimated cost of Rs 44,605 crore at 2020-21 prices.
The petitioner contended that a 2019 report of the CEC, appointed by the Supreme Court, had raised concerns over wildlife clearance, the environmental effects of the project and the forest land and wildlife habitat likely to be affected. He submitted that the wildlife clearance was challenged before the National Green Tribunal, which transferred the matter to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court in turn referred it to the CEC. According to him, an application seeking consideration of the CEC report is pending before the Supreme Court.
He further alleged that the procedure the CEC report prescribes for completing the project is not being followed, and sought a grievance redressal committee for the people affected. The petition also alleges that a large part of the Panna Tiger Reserve could be submerged, that a very large number of trees could be felled, and that the 2017 Environmental Impact Assessment is unreliable. It further alleges that residents of Chhatarpur district who protested faced police and administrative pressure. These are the petitioner’s allegations. They are untested, and the Court has recorded no finding on them.
What the Court said
The Bench indicated that it was reluctant to intervene because the Supreme Court is already examining the broader issues, including the CEC report and river-linking projects across the country, in the proceedings titled Re: Networking of Rivers. It observed that the Supreme Court would examine whether its own directions were being complied with, and that the High Court would not presume non-compliance without specific instances.
The Court also held that matters under review by a higher court should be examined by the forum that passed the orders. It declined to assume that the State would act contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions, and rejected the prayer for a grievance redressal committee on the reasoning that it would create a parallel system.
The directions
The Court sought the State’s clarification on the status of the Supreme Court proceedings and on the action taken on the CEC report. It also directed the State to respond to a communication dated January 21, 2022 sent by the Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India. The Union was represented by Deputy Solicitor General Suyash Mohan Guru and Additional Solicitor General Sunil Kumar Jain, and the State by Additional Advocate General Bramhadatt Singh.
Why the order matters
The order shows a High Court calibrating its role where a project’s environmental questions are already being examined by the Supreme Court. It leaves compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions to that Court, while still asking the State to disclose where the CEC report and the Supreme Court proceedings stand.
The Court has expressed no view on the merits of the petitioner’s allegations or on the project’s environmental clearances. The State’s response on October 13 will indicate how the matter proceeds in the High Court.
Case Title: Arihant Tiwari v. Union of India [WP/14875/2026]
Bench: Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain, Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date of Order: October 9, 2026
Appearances: Petitioner in person; Deputy Solicitor General Suyash Mohan Guru and Additional Solicitor General Sunil Kumar Jain for the Union; Additional Advocate General Bramhadatt Singh for the State