From 'mudslide' to 'landslide': Decoding shift in govt stance over Wayanad tunnel project disaster

On July 7, immediately after the disaster at the under-construction Anakkampoyil-Kalladi-Meppadi tunnel road project site, from where three deaths have been confirmed so far, the Kerala government's initial position was that the tragedy was caused by a mudslide triggered by the unscientific dumping of excavated earth by the contractor.

Kerala Agriculture Minister and MLA from Wayanad, T. Siddique, was among the first to blame the contractor, alleging that lapses in handling the excavated soil had led to the disaster.

However, the government's position has now shifted, with it acknowledging that the incident was, in fact, a landslide—a distinction that once again raises fundamental questions about the project's environmental viability.

Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan on Tuesday confirmed that a "landslide" had occurred immediately above the disaster site and said that this aspect would be examined before any further decisions are taken on the project.

The state government has now decided to conduct a technical investigation into the Wayanad Kalladi disaster and initiate appropriate legal action based on its findings. It will also verify whether the contractor complied with the conditions laid down by the Centre while granting environmental clearance for the tunnel project.

A senior government official told THE WEEK that the initial assumption was that the dumped earth had given way, because that was the primary risk that officials had been monitoring.

According to the official, the excavated soil had been stacked on the right side of the project site, while the tunnel lay on the left, backed by forested terrain.

The official said engineers had noticed a minor crack inside the tunnel and went to inspect it after suspecting a slight structural shift.

"While they were walking in to examine it, the slope behind suddenly gave way. It wasn't a mudslide—it was a landslide. If it's a landslide, then the real issue is environmental safety," the official said.

“The evidence is the uprooted trees. Trees don't get uprooted and washed down from the project site, because there were no trees there. By looking at the number and size of the uprooted trees, you can estimate how far behind the landslide originated.”

The official added that had the incident been caused by the dumped soil, the contractor's actions would naturally have come under scrutiny.

"That was everyone's first impression because we had held three or four meetings specifically over fears that the dumped soil might wash away," the official said.

"The bigger question is the safety of the project itself. Now we have to ask how environmental clearance was granted if a landslide has occurred there," the official added.

A heap of confusion

The previous government under Pinarayi Vijayan had initiated the Anakkampoyil-Kalladi-Meppadi tunnel project to address Wayanad's long-standing connectivity problems. It argued that the existing Thamarassery Ghat Road, with its steep gradients and nine hairpin bends, is highly vulnerable to monsoon-triggered landslides, traffic congestion and accidents.

The government also justified the project citing that widening or realigning the saturated NH 766 ghat section was not feasible, making a four-lane tunnel road the preferred solution for providing an all-weather link between Kozhikode and Wayanad.

The project was entrusted to the Konkan Railway Corporation Limited (KRCL), which floated the tender and awarded the contract to Dilip Buildcon Limited. The project was inaugurated before the end of the term of the previous government and work had started on it.

Significantly, following a site inspection on June 26, senior Public Works Department (PWD) officials expressed concern over the large heap of excavated soil accumulated near the construction site.

The PWD directed the contractor to take all necessary precautions during the monsoon to prevent hazards such as soil piping, slope instability, and other geotechnical risks. Since the piled-up soil was considered a potential danger, the contractor was instructed to reduce the height of the dump and obtain the opinion of technical experts on mitigation measures.

The contractor had already been allotted land away from the project site for storing excavated muck. However, officials said the company was reluctant to transport the soil there because it intended to reuse the excavated material later for backfilling at the project site. Instead, it requested a storage area adjacent to the construction zone.

At the June 26 review meeting, the contractor informed the government that the excavated soil had been covered with tarpaulins as far as possible to prevent water infiltration and that there was no suitable space left within the project area to accommodate additional soil.

KRCL informed the meeting that a site capable of temporarily storing about 100,000 cubic metres of excavated material was required, following which the district administration was asked to identify suitable land. The meeting also concluded that removing the soil during the ongoing monsoon could further destabilise the ground and increase the risk of accidents.

Notably, it was this pile of excavated soil that Agriculture Minister T. Siddique initially identified as the likely cause of the disaster, before subsequent assessments indicated that the incident was a landslide originating above the project site, rather than a mudslide caused by the dumped earth.

The contracting company has maintained that the landslide did not originate within the active construction zone.

According to its representatives, the excavation face had been fully stabilised through nailing and other protective measures, and the slope failure began 10-12 metres behind the protected area, on land belonging to the Forest Department, where the company had no authority to undertake any engineering work.

Even after the company's explanation, however, state ministers said the claim that "everything had been done perfectly" could not be accepted at face value.

They insisted that responsibility could not be ruled out without a detailed scientific investigation into the causes of the disaster.

Worries reignited

Incidentally, the landslide has once again brought the project's viability in Wayanad's ecologically fragile terrain under scrutiny.

Critics point out that nearly 60 amendments were recommended after the final Detailed Project Report (DPR) was submitted—an unusually high number for a single infrastructure project.

They argue that many of these recommendations were either diluted, or not adequately incorporated into the final design, and have also called for the project's environmental clearance to be revoked, as well as for the entire project to undergo a fresh assessment by an independent panel of scientific experts.

Critics have also questioned whether the project is based on an outdated DPR that fails to adequately account for the changing realities of the region, including climate change, increasingly intense rainfall, recent landslides, groundwater behaviour, tunnel hydrology, geotechnical conditions and drainage patterns.

In March 2025, when Kerala’s State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), which advises the government on environmental clearance for development projects at the state level, had given the green signal to the Twin Tube Tunnel Road project, it came with 25 stringent conditions for the tunnel’s construction.

These included conducting micro-scale mapping of landslide-vulnerable zones, setting up automated weather stations, and employing advanced tunnelling methods that reduce ground vibrations.

“What we still don't know is how those conditions are being addressed from an engineering perspective. Simply assuming that the contractor will take care of everything is not a satisfactory approach,” said Suma Vishnudas from the Hume Centre for Ecology and Wildlife Biology, which had accurately predicted the disastrous Mundakkai-Chooralmala landslides in 2024.

“The government should first explain how it intends to address each of those 25 conditions identified in its own environmental assessment. What are the engineering solutions? Those answers should be made public. I'm not saying the environmental assessment report itself is flawed. But while granting approval, the authorities also stated that these conditions had to be complied with before the project could proceed. The problem is that there is no publicly available document explaining exactly how those conditions are being implemented. If such a document is released, many of our concerns would be addressed. After all, what everyone wants is to ensure that no more lives are lost.”

Suma also outlined the dilemma in the minds of the people of Wayanad.

“ If you visit places like Chooralmala and speak to people living in the hills, they are worried. They know the terrain is fragile. But when you speak to people in the town, many say they want the tunnel road. They believe it will increase land values, boost tourism and improve economic prospects. You can't really blame them for thinking that way.

That's why many people don't openly voice their concerns in public. But privately, they also have fears, because they know how vulnerable their surroundings are.”