NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2000 SC 3751

NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2000 SC 3751

FACTS

This case came before the Supreme Court in 1994 through a writ petition filed by Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) challenging various stands of the Government of India and issues revolving around the Sardar Sarovar Project. The petition further claimed that these omissions had led to a flawed project with grossly underestimated social and environmental costs and violation of human rights and damage to the environment. In conclusion, it demanded that a review of the project be undertaken.

OBSERVATION AND JUDGEMENT

In this case, Justice A. S. Anand and Justice B. N. Kripal gave the majority judgment to raise the height of the dam, Justice S. P. Bharucha gave the dissent judgment.

Plea at Belated Stage: The Supreme Court studied the scope of its petition before deciding to restrict it to relief and rehabilitation issues. It observed that a conditional environmental clearance given in 1987 had been challenged in 1994 and that the pleas relating to the raising of height of the dam and the extent of submergence, environmental studies and clearance, hydrology, seismicity and other issues, excepting the implementation of relief and rehabilitation, could not be permitted to be raised at this belated stage.

The Court noted that the conception of the project was that of the government and that the only thing a Court could do was to ensure that the system worked in the manner envisaged. It stated that in respect of public projects, the Court should not become an approval authority. In a democracy, the welfare of the people is the concern of a responsible government. It also observed that the experience of the past had shown that a properly drafted relief and rehabilitation programme could improve the living standards of the displaced people. The Court accepted the government’s contention that water was being supplied to drought-prone areas without really examining its authenticity. The Court finally decided to dispose of the case with a few directions and accordingly, the majority judgment (2:1) dismissed the public interest petition filed by NBA.

The dissenting judgment of Justice S. P. Bharucha held that the Sardar Sarovar Project was proceeding without a comprehensive environmental appraisal, a majority of the successive judges allowed the government to construct the dam without first requiring a comprehensive environmental impact assessment, which was necessary even according to the government’s own rules and notifications. e judges were so impressed by the potential benefits of the development activities associated with the construction of big dams that they could hardly visualize either the human or environmental costs involved in such development activities. The Court did not allow the Narmada Bachao Andolan to make any submission on the pros and cons of large dams.