Why New Seismic Design Code was Withdrawn

March 17, 2026

Abhishek Vij

Over the past two or three years, the extraordinary climatic changes resulting from environmental pollution began to write a new narrative of devastation in the Himalayan region. Given the alarming severity of the situation, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) was compelled to undertake a fresh assessment. In late November 2025, in light of hazardous natural disasters, the BIS released new seismic zone maps for India that included a “Zone 6″—a category designating areas of extremely high risk. Under these maps, the entire Himalayan belt—stretching from Jammu & Kashmir to Arunachal Pradesh—was classified under Zone 6, the category carrying the highest seismic risk.

Approximately 60 percent of the country’s landmass was categorized as falling within moderate-to-high risk zones.

Prior to this, in 2024, India had been delineated into four seismic zones: 2, 3, 4, and 5. In November 2025, an additional “Zone 6” was introduced, wherein the entire Himalayan region—from Jammu & Kashmir to Arunachal Pradesh—was designated as a massive, high-risk zone. It was further stipulated that if cities were situated along the boundary lines of two seismic zones, they, too, would be reclassified as high-risk zones.

The consequence of this was that the scenic destinations across the entire Himalayan range—as well as popular tourist hubs like Jaipur, Ahmedabad, and Alwar—were suddenly placed within a high-danger zone. The issuance of such maps created a grave crisis for the tourism sector, which remains one of India’s most lucrative industries.

This sector encompasses everything from picturesque travel destinations to the large-scale hotels and resorts that have flourished in these regions. Had this official notification regarding seismic zones remained in force, the tourism industry’s revenue would have suffered a severe blow, as both domestic and international tourists would have become apprehensive about visiting these destinations.

Our view regarding this decision is that the choice to disregard potential hazards in the pursuit of higher revenue cannot be deemed entirely prudent. Would it not have been more sensible to limit development to a scale that these fragile mountain ecosystems can sustainably support? In regions where even the construction of a two-lane road presents significant logistical challenges, planning for four-lane or six-lane highways—often necessitating the use of explosives—is an ill-advised undertaking.

Therefore, in the wake of this decision by the BIS, those concerned with tourism development must reflect on the imperative to ensure that, in the race for progress, the natural integrity of the environment is not compromised. Modernization in these regions should be embraced only to the extent that it does not erode the inherent uniqueness and authenticity of the local landscape. While the desire to generate greater revenue through tourism is a goal acceptable to the entire nation, it must not be pursued by inadvertently inviting avoidable—and potentially catastrophic—natural disasters. The reckless, risk-laden development undertaken in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand—driven by the relentless tide of modernization—has already triggered landslides, rockfalls, and flash floods across the mountains. Given such bitter past experiences, a heightened sense of vigilance is now absolutely essential.