Case Brief: Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India

Name of the Case	Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Citation	2000 INSC 489
Date of the Judgement	18.10.2000
Petitioner	Narmada Bachao Andolan
Defendants	Union of India, State of MP, Maharashtra, and Gujarat
Bench/ Judges	Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI, S.P. Bharucha and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
Statutes Involved	Constitution of India, Environment Protection Act, 1986, Interstate Water Disputes Act, 1956
Important Articles/ Sections	Constitution of India- Article 21

FACTS OF THE CASE

“Narmada River is one of the top 5 largest rivers in India, which flows westward through Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Gujarat. The idea of constructing a dam on the banks of the river was put forth by the former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru through the Sardar Sarovar Dam. However, this faced a lot of challenges, such as disputes between the states over the sharing of the water. The  Government of India passed the Interstate Water Disputes Act 1956, whereunder the Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal was constituted in 1969.

The issue went to the Tribunal for its judgment, and in its award, the Tribunal allowed the construction of the Dam and laid down the provisions for water sharing to resolve the water sharing disputes. The award specifically mandated for the relocation and rehabilitation of project-affiliated families.

However, the project still encountered numerous challenges and significant delays, primarily from the Narmada Bachao Andolan (hereinafter referred to as NBA). NBA is a social movement led by prominent activists who were against the construction of the dam. They believed that the environmental and social costs outweighed its benefits. 

Even after their raised voices, they received approval and clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, but this permission was conditional. The construction proceeded. Meanwhile, the NBA filed a writ petition seeking to halt the construction along with a demand for adequate rehabilitation to all dislocated persons.”

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Constitution of India

Article 12: Defines the state

Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty

Article 262: Deals with interstate water disputes

Article 32: Writ Jurisdiction

Environment Protection Act, 1986

Section 3: Significant power to the central government for the upliftment and maintenance of the environment

Interstate Water Disputes Act, 1956

Section 3: modus operandi for the state government to request the central government to refer the dispute to the tribunal

Section 4: Constitution of Water Dispute Tribunal

Section 5: process for adjudication of the dispute

Section 6: It mandates the Central Government to publish the award in the official gazette

Section 6A: Empowers the central government to create a scheme for the implementation of the award

LEGAL ISSUES

The following legal issues were considered by the court:

1. Whether the environmental clearance granted to the project valid and sustainable under the law?
2. Whether the package provided for the family who are relocated, adequate, and whether its implementation is as per the award of the Tribunal?
3. Whether the judiciary interfere in the policy decisions of the executive and expert bodies?

ARGUMENTS FROM THE PETITIONER’S SIDE

The learned counsel from the petitioner’s side made the following arguments.

1. They argued that the forced displacement of a large number of people from their ancestral land and traditional livelihoods constitutes a gross violation of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
2. They contended that the compensation that was provided to them was inadequate to sustain themselves after removing them from their lands.
3. Many displaced families have not received agricultural land, housing, or basic civic amenities at the resettlement sites.
4. They argued that the clearance granted was incomplete and inconsistent with the conditions for the permission. It will cause many long-term impacts such as environmental degradation, deforestation, floods, etc.
5. The vast amount of land submerged under the water is fertile land and forest, which will cause irreparable damage. 
6. The counsels referred to the international conventions, such as ILO Convention No. 107, to emphasise the obligation of the state to protect the indigenous and tribal populations.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE DEFENDANT’S SIDE

The learned counsel from the Defendant's side contended that

1. They contended that the dam project is crucial for regional development and the growth of the economy.
2. This project will help in providing drinking and irrigation water to the drought-prone areas of Gujarat and Rajasthan.
3. It will help in generating hydroelectric power.
4. The project is of paramount national importance.
5. The package provided for the rehabilitation program was one of the most liberal ones in the country, which offers ‘land-for-land’ and various other civic amenities.
6. Substantial progress has been made in the rehabilitation of the displaced family, and in case of any issues Grievance Redressal Authority was constituted.
7. The clearance for the construction of the project was granted after due consideration and deliberations. Additionally, the authorities such as Narmada Control Authority and its sub groups have been continuously monitoring the progress and their impact assessments were made.
8. The judiciary is encroaching upon the functions of the executive and interfering in the executive policy which is against the idea of separation of powers as provided for under the Constitution.
9. Halting the project at such advanced phase would lead to greater financial loses. Therefore this delay in filing the petition should not be accepted. 

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED

“The bench allowed the petition.

The majority judgment, authored by Justice B.N. Kirpal and Justice G.B. Pattanaik concuring, permitted the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam as per the award of the Tribunal. 

The bench directed that

1. Construction of the dam will continue as per the award.
2. The sub group under the authority will make timely inspection and grant clearance for further stage of construction before construction beyond 90 meters. 
3. The permission to raise the dam height beyond 90 meters will be given by the Narmada Control Authority, from time to time, after it obtains the above mentioned clearance from the Relief and Rehabilation sub-group and the Environment Sub-Group.
4. The reports of the authorities show that there had been slackness in the implementation of the award and therefore, the states are directed to ensure proper implementation and relief and rehabilitation in terms of package.
5. The NCA will draw an action plan in relation to further construction and rehabilitation work. The action plan will fix a time frame for the same. And these directions are binding in nature.
6. The grievance rederessal authority will be at liberty to issue appropriate directions for the respective states for implementation of rehabilitation scheme and in case of non-implementation, it will have full liberty to approach the review committee for appropriate orders.

The dissenting opinion by Justice S.P. Bharucha highlighted the importance of environmental protection and emphasised the need for stricter adherence to the precautionary principle. 

He was of the opinion that Sardar Sarovar Dam does not require to be re-examined. 

Considering the magnitude of rehabilitation, involving a large percentage of tribals, loss of extensive forest area rich in biological diversity, enormous environmental cost of the project and the basic data on vital aspects is still not available. There could be only one conclusion that the project is not ready for approval. 

Even if one assumes that the forests destroyed do not contain genetic resources, which in any case cannot be believed, the simple loss of these forests is estimated at several thousand crore of rupees. Therefore, the environmental cost is colossal.”

CONCLUSION

“The bench delivered a landmark judgment which represents a complex and highly significant ruling. The court struck a balance between large scale national development and fundamntal rights of the citizens. The court asserted that it would not substitute its own wisdon for that of expert bodies especially when clearances have been granted by the due process. The bench also upheld right to rehabilitation as a part of right to life under article 21.”