If at all any fine has to be levied, it should be levied on the Central and State governments and the NGT itself for granting permission (for the World Cultural Festival).Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s Art of Living foundation is arguing against the recommendation to impose a Rs 42 crore fine for “destroying” the Yamuna floodplains where the World Cultural Festival was hosted on 11-13 March.
.png?auto=format%2Ccompress&fmt=webp&width=720)
Each of the four agencies in Sri Sri’s line of fire – the Water Resources Ministry, the Environment Ministry, Delhi government and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) – have reacted to his accusations before the green tribunal.
Central Ministries Shift Blame
Reacting to Shankar’s statements, the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources told the National Green Tribunal (NGT) they were not responsible for the damage caused to the floodplains of Yamuna, as alleged by the spiritual guru.
The Environment Ministry said the event did not require environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, and hence it had no role in approving the festival.
Both ministries pointed towards the DDA, as they maintained that neither of them had a role in granting permissions for the contentious festival.
Delhi Development Authority (DDA) granted the permission for holding the function on the floodplains. AOL conducted the whole event. We are not liable to pay for the damages.Environment and Water Resources Ministry to NGT bench headed by Chairperson Justice Swatanter Kumar.
This, is true.
AOL had taken permissions from the DDA a few days prior to the event in March 2016.
DDA Granted Permission, But Says ‘Not Liable For Damage’
Senior advocate Rajiv Bansal, appearing for DDA, said the permission was granted to AOL for the festival after making it clear to them that no permanent or semi-permanent construction of any kind was allowed on the riverbed.
"I was approached for seeking permission for the World Culture Festival, which was bonafidely given. I own complete responsibility for the event. According to my interpretation, NGT has not banned any event on the floodplains by its 2015 judgement," the Bansal said.
The DDA lawyer vociferously opposed Ravi Shankar's statement that the authorities which had granted permission for the event should be held liable for the damage to the floodplains.
They (AOL) are asking us to pay for the damages. But under which provision of law and for what? DDA can’t be held liable for vicarious liability. We were unaware about the size of the whole event at the time of granting permission.Rajiv Bansal, DDA Lawyer
Delhi Govt Grants NOC, But Quotes ‘Limited Responsibility’
The Delhi government echoed the same views as the DDA.
They defended themselves before the NGT saying they had ‘limited responsibility’ in the entire matter as the government had granted no-objection certificates on behalf of the Delhi Police.
An expert committee had recommended to the NGT last month that Rs 42.02 crore would be required to restore the Yamuna floodplains, which were ravaged due to a cultural extravaganza organised by AOL last year. The NGT is yet to take a call on the recommendations.
( With inputs from PTI )
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)