FIR Against WAPCOS CMD Shilpa Shinde Over Kalai-II EIA Sparks Power Struggle Allegations

The state of Arunachal Pradesh has found itself at the centre of a controversy that could ripple across the public sector establishment.

An FIR filed at the Anjaw police station has named Shilpa Shinde, the recently appointed Chairperson and Managing Director of WAPCOS Ltd, in connection with alleged irregularities in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Kalai-II hydropower project.

The complaint, filed by Roshman Tawsik, a local activist, doesn’t stop with Shinde. It also names a WAPCOS EIA scientist, the Anjaw Deputy Commissioner, and the State Land Management Secretary. Tawsik says he had earlier issued legal notices and emails raising objections to the EIA process, none of which, according to him, drew corrective action. He now seeks a full review of the 2013 and 2025 EIA reports, the accompanying correspondences, and project documents—along with legal action under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

In defence, the Anjaw Deputy Commissioner insists that the entire EIA process was transparent, conducted under the supervision of the Arunachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board, and fully video recorded. Every affected family, he maintains, was heard and every stakeholder present.

But away from the paperwork, voices from within suggest that this may be more than just an environmental concern. It may, in fact, be the opening salvo in a turf battle within WAPCOS—between the old order and the new.

---

A Battle Beneath the Surface

According to multiple insiders—who requested anonymity—this FIR could be the handiwork of interests aligned with former CMD Rajnikant Aggarwal, removed from his post earlier this year. The grievance, they suggest, stems from the sweeping reforms initiated under Shinde’s leadership: tighter audits, stalled payments pending review, and scrutiny of procurement procedures.

The informants name a handful of former executives—Sumir Chawla, Rajat Jain, Vimal Chander, Deepank Agarwal (allegedly overseeing operations in the Northeast from Guwahati), and Deepak Lakhanpal—who, they allege, have been active in undermining the current dispensation.

“The moment Shinde took charge, old vendor lists were frozen, and audit trails reopened,” one mid-level project manager told this reporter. “Those who had long benefitted from a certain comfort zone suddenly found themselves under the scanner. This FIR is their pushback.”

Another insider went a step further, claiming that local contractors in Arunachal had been advised to “cooperate with the complainant’s side” or risk losing future work.

None of this is proven. But the timing, tone, and tenor of the FIR suggest an internal power struggle masquerading as a public interest complaint.

---

The Timing and the Context

The developments come at a time when WAPCOS—a central PSU under the Ministry of Jal Shakti—is under financial and operational stress.

In October 2025, Business Standard reported that India Ratings had downgraded WAPCOS’s credit ratings, citing elongated working capital cycles and uncertainty in receivables. The same report confirmed that Aggarwal had been relieved of his duties for operational lapses and irregularities.

Against this backdrop, Shilpa Shinde’s appointment was read within bureaucratic circles as part of a larger reset—an attempt to restore order and credibility to a consultancy that once prided itself on technical excellence and integrity.

Under her watch, several internal audits and vigilance checks were initiated to review pending contracts and revalidate vendors. These steps, though administrative in nature, appear to have unsettled sections of the old network within and outside the organisation.

That is what makes the timing of the FIR critical. It lands precisely when WAPCOS is mid-course in a reform exercise—raising questions about whether it is a legitimate complaint or a calculated counterstrike.

---

What Is at Stake

The implications go beyond one officer or one company.

For WAPCOS, already struggling with a downgraded rating and cash flow constraints, the reputational cost of such an FIR could be severe.

For Shilpa Shinde, it threatens to erode the moral authority with which she has sought to push through reforms.

The stakes, however, are not confined to WAPCOS alone. If internal resistance within public sector undertakings finds expression through FIRs as instruments of retaliation, it could create a chilling effect on reformist leadership across the PSU ecosystem.

The environmental dimension—real or perceived—risks being subsumed under this institutional intrigue. River ecology, tribal land rights, and procedural fairness, the legitimate pillars of an EIA, could be reduced to collateral talking points in a bureaucratic war.

---

The Road Ahead

For the moment, three imperatives stand out:

First, the Ministry of Jal Shakti must move swiftly to constitute an independent panel of environmental, legal, and forensic experts to examine the FIR and the EIA documents dispassionately.

Second, WAPCOS must place on record a transparent sequence of administrative decisions—audits, procurement reviews, contract revisions—since Shinde took office.

Third, whistle-blowers and insiders must be protected from retaliation; credible testimony should be heard in confidence.

A parallel environmental audit—covering both the 2013 and 2025 EIA reports—could help separate fact from faction. And the law enforcement process, already underway, must remain immune from leaks, coercion, or political crosswinds.

At stake is not merely one officer’s career, but the credibility of reform in India’s public sector enterprises.

---

A Test Case for Institutional Reform

The FIR against Shilpa Shinde is more than a legal matter; it’s a litmus test for governance inside India’s PSUs.

Handled well, it could reaffirm the principle that accountability and transparency are indivisible from reform. Handled poorly, it could reinforce the cynicism that the system protects its own and punishes those who disturb its comfort zones.

For now, the evidence must do the talking. The public and the press must do the watching.

Because how this story ends will say much about whether integrity can survive the politics of the public sector.