The only drawback the dissent suffers from is the apparent physical impracticality of stalling the work at such a late juncture and the seemingly last-minute measure would be seen as antidevelopment

Vaishnavi Nirmal  | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 9th March 2020

Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India and others AIR 2000 SC 3751

Fact of case:

On behalf of the petitioners, the arguments of Sh. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel, were divided into four different heads, namely, general issues, issues regarding environment, issues regarding relief and rehabilitation and issues regarding review of Tribunals Award. The petitioners have sought to contend that it is necessary for some independent judicial authority to review the entire project, examine the current best estimates of all costs (social, environmental, financial), benefits and alternatives in order to determine whether the project is required in its present form in the national interest or whether it needs to be re- structured/modified. It is further the case of the petitioners that no work should proceed till environment impact assessment has been fully done and its implications for the projects viability being assessed in a transparent and participatory manner. This can best be done, it is submitted, as a part of the comprehensive review of the project.

While strongly championing the cause of environment and of the tribals who are to be ousted as a result of the submergence, it was submitted that the environmental clearance which was granted in 1987 was without any or proper application of mind as complete studies in that behalf were not available and till this is done the project should not be allowed to proceed further. With regard to relief and rehabilitation a number of contentions were raised with a view to persuade this Court that further submergence should not take place and the height of the dam, if at all it is to be allowed to be constructed, should be considerably reduced as it is not possible to have satisfactory relief and rehabilitation of the ousters as per the Tribunals Award as a result of which their fundamental rights under Article 21 would be violated.

While the State of Madhya Pradesh has partly supported the petitioners inasmuch as it has also pleaded for reduction in the height of the dam so as to reduce the extent of submergence and the consequent displacement, the other States and the Union of India have refuted the contentions of the petitioners and of the State of Madhya Pradesh. While accepting that initially the relief and rehabilitation measures had lagged behind but now adequate steps have been taken to ensure proper implementation of relief and rehabilitation at least as per the Award. The respondents have, while refuting other allegations, also questioned the bona fides of the petitioners in filing this petition. It is contended that the cause of the tribals and environment is being taken up by the petitioners not with a view to benefit the tribals but the real reason for filing this petition is to see that a high dam is not erected per se. It was also submitted that at this late stage this Court should not adjudicate on the various issues raised specially those which have been decided by the Tribunals Award.

Issues:

1. Whether the environmental clearance granted by the Union of India for the construction of a dam had been granted without proper study and understanding of the environmental impact of the project?
2. Whether the environmental conditions imposed by the Ministry of Environment had been violated and if so, what was the legal effect of the violations?

Judgement:

The Supreme Court of India declined to get involved in a petition against damming the Narmada River. In so doing, the Court noted that a lengthy decision-making process had been behind the damming, and that the Court should not try to second-guess something which had been given such great consideration already. Thus, the Court essentially gave the go-ahead for the displacement of indigenous and tribal populations which were in the path of the damming.

While issuing directions and disposing of this case, two conditions have to be kept in mind by the court The completion of project at the earliest and ensuring compliance with conditions on which clearance of the project was given including completion of relief and rehabilitation work and taking of ameliorative and compensatory measures for environmental protection in compliance with the scheme framed by the Government thereby protecting the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.The court ordered compensatory measures for environmental protection in compliance with the scheme framed by the Government and ordered the construction to continue while the alleviate measures were carried out.