New Delhi: For decades, it was a national ambition to connect the Kashmir valley with the rest of India by an all-weather railway. That dream appeared to be realised with the inauguration of the Chenab Bridge, the world’s highest railway arch.
But a former chief engineer on the project has alleged that this “engineering marvel” has critical safety flaws, was built on a flawed alignment against expert advice, and that his attempts to raise concerns were systematically suppressed.
Alok Kumar Verma, a retired Indian Railway Service of Engineers (IRSE) officer, has spent nearly two decades arguing that the project is unsafe. In a set of documents shared with The Wire, including official reports and court judgements, he claims the most critical section of the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla Rail Link (USBRL) is dangerously unstable.
“From the start, the alignment was ill-conceived,” Verma wrote in a recent letter to India’s Railway Board.
His account, supported by official records, details a long-running dispute that reached the highest levels of the government and courts.
A ‘flawed’ alignment
The core of the dispute lies in the 111-km stretch from Katra to Banihal through the Pir Panjal mountains.
When construction began in 2002, the route was chosen based on what Verma calls a “paper alignment without even preliminary ground reconnaissance”. This route follows the contours of the mountains to maintain a gentle gradient.
Verma argues this was a fundamental error. He says this “slope-skirting” alignment runs parallel to major geological fault lines in the young, unstable Himalayas, making it highly vulnerable to landslides and earthquakes.
He proposed a shorter, straighter, and steeper route that would tunnel directly through the mountains, cutting across the fault zones at a near-perpendicular angle. He argued this was standard global practice for such terrain, and would be safer, more stable, and allow for a double-line track with greater capacity. His calculations suggested it could have been built for half the cost.
His proposals were met with resistance. “An issue regarding the flawed alignment was raised internally by a director,” Verma told The Wire. “However, Northern Railways officials forced the problematic alignment on KRCL (Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd). I was assigned to this project, raised the same issue, and was subsequently sent away abroad for a training course.”
Verma alleges that when construction was halted in 2008 amid growing internal pressure, officials discussed how to conceal the design’s problems with “engineering patches and fixes”. He identifies the Railway Board as the “principal culprit” in pushing the project forward.
High court ruling
As Verma continued to challenge the official line, he was transferred away from the project in 2009. He contested the move at the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which ruled in his favour. The Railway Board then challenged that decision in the Delhi High Court.
In its judgement in September 2010, the court officially recorded the “tussle of designs”.
The judges found there were “two rival view-points” and that Verma’s was supported by experts, including the respected engineer Dr E. Sreedharan. The court concluded that senior railway officials had actively prevented the Minister of Railways from getting a full picture of the debate.
“From the circumstances pointed above, it is crystal clear that the view-point canvassed by the respondent [Verma]… was scuttled,” the High Court ruled, adding that the minister was “time and again prevented from having a fair assessment”.
The court found the transfer was made in “bad faith” (mala fide) and was not in the public interest. However, instead of being reinstated to his influential role on the USBRL project, he was soon transferred again. This time, he was sent to the North East Frontier Railway (NEFR).
Expert committee’s ‘grave doubts’
Following a Public Interest Litigation, the Delhi High Court in 2014 ordered a new high-level expert committee, chaired by Dr Sreedharan, to settle the debate.
The committee’s report, submitted in February 2015, was unanimous. It concluded that Verma’s proposed alignment was, on nearly every technical metric, “undoubtedly superior”.
Its most serious finding concerned the Chenab Bridge. The report stated: “All members of this Committee have serious reservations on the safety and stability of this bridge. On this score alone we are unable to technically endorse the present contour alignment… which has necessitated this enormous Arch Bridge.”
The committee warned that any major damage to the bridge from a landslide or enemy action-it is just 37 km from the Line of Control (LOC)-would shut down the entire rail link for a minimum of five to six years.
Despite the findings, and assurances at the time from the then-railway minister, the Railway Board proceeded with the original plan, citing the money already spent.
Costs and ‘criminal negligence’ fears
Verma argues the financial and safety consequences of that decision are significant.
The final cost of the Katra-Banihal section is estimated to have risen to Rs 40,000 crore. Because the winding route covers a straight-line distance of only 50 km, Verma calculates the effective cost to be an “extremely high” – Rs 800 crore per kilometre. “We could have made a double line at half the cost with twice the capacity,” he told The Wire.
His focus has now shifted to operational safety. In a recent letter, he alleged that the statutory inspection by the Commissioner of Railway Safety (CRS) was insufficient, amounting to “gross misconduct and may even amount to criminal negligence”.
He claims the inspection failed to adequately address fire safety in the line’s extensive tunnels (which make up 87% of the route), the stability of slope cuttings, and disaster management plans. He wrote to the Minister of Railways that recent load testing on bridges appeared to be more of a “publicity exercise rather than a meaningful assessment”.
“The safety, sustainability, and public trust in the Katra-Banihal rail link must take precedence over expediency,” Verma told The Wire. “Ignoring these systemic issues could lead to catastrophic consequences.”
“The Supreme Court, in its final observations on the matter, noted that the Delhi High Court ‘did ring the warning bells’ and that the responsibility to act now rests with the union government,” he added.