The Meghalaya High Court has criticised the Meghalaya Waterbodies (Preservation and Conservation) Guidelines, 2023 as being more of a formality without addressing the real issues.
During a hearing on the suo motu PIL by the division bench of the High Court today, the State government filed an affidavit informing the court about Meghalaya Waterbodies (Preservation and Conservation) Guidelines, 2023 to protect water-bodies in the State.
However, the High Court was dissatisfied with the guidelines as they do not deal with the most serious aspect of buildings and construction mushrooming around water-bodies.
“Though the guidelines indicate that garbage, trash and debris may not be dumped into the water-bodies, it is surprising that the guidelines are issued without indicating how far away from the high-water level of every water-body construction may be permissible,” the High Court said.
“The guidelines introduced by the State as disclosed in the affidavit fall woefully short of the expectations or the measures necessary to protect the water-bodies, particularly the Umiam Lake. The fragile biosphere and the ecology of the State have to be protected even as, on a daily basis, large chunks of forestland are being appropriated for human habitation or use,” the court added.
According to the High Court, the guidelines of 2023 published by the State appear to be more of a formality without addressing the real issues.
Asking the State government to do much better and filed a fresh report at the next hearing, the High Court also said that the prohibition on construction around water-bodies will continue till the State government addresses such issue in a more considered set of rules or guidelines that it framed.
Further, the High Court said that in the absence of any other employment opportunities and in the name of promoting tourism, the natural beauty of the State should not be destroyed and the State should be alive to the problem.
“Several of the rivers, including the Umkhrah in Shillong itself are carrying such contaminated water that they may not be fit even to step into. Elsewhere, rivers and streams which may not be perennial carry so much filth and dirt that people living downstream are deprived of the use of the water altogether,” the court said.
On the suggestions given by the expert committee formed to deal with protection of water-bodies, the High Court said the State government has not given any clarity as to how such suggestions have been given legal force.
The court also said that the State government has not taken into account the eminent suggestions given to ensure that the flora and the fauna around the water-bodies were not devastated in the name of promoting tourism or undertaking constructions.
“The State must indicate the measures taken by it to arrest deforestation as stretches along the highways all over the State reveal felling of trees and more and more of the mountain being chopped off for construction purposes. Though, officially, there are previous claims by the State that more than 72 per cent of its total area is covered by forest, it would be interesting to ascertain whether any recent survey in such regard has been conducted for such report to be placed before the court,” it said while listing the matter for hearing on August 31.
