Criminal Liability For Systemic Forced Displacements For Mega Projects
1. Understanding Systemic Forced Displacement for Mega Projects
Forced displacement occurs when individuals or communities are involuntarily removed from their homes, land, or livelihoods to make way for large-scale projects, such as:
Dams and hydroelectric projects
Large industrial plants or mining operations
Urban redevelopment or township projects
Infrastructure projects like highways or airports
Systemic forced displacement occurs when displacement is planned or executed without adequate legal procedures, compensation, or rehabilitation, often involving:
Collusion between government authorities and corporate entities
Coercion, intimidation, or physical removal
Suppression of protests or legal remedies
Criminal liability arises when:
Authorities or corporations knowingly violate laws protecting residents
Actions result in harm, intimidation, or violation of human rights
There is conspiracy, collusion, or neglect of mandated resettlement procedures
Consequences: Criminal charges against officials and corporate executives, compensation to victims, suspension or cancellation of projects, and reputational damage.
2. Legal Framework
Indian Law
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy
Section 326/323 – Grievous harm or bodily injury in coercion
Section 406 – Criminal breach of trust
Section 420 – Cheating and deception
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR), 2013: Ensures proper compensation and rehabilitation of displaced persons
Constitutional Provisions:
Article 21 – Right to life and livelihood
Article 19 – Freedom of movement and occupation
Article 300A – Protection of property
International Framework
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Corporations have a duty to avoid human rights abuses.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Protects individuals from arbitrary displacement.
ILO Conventions (e.g., C169): Rights of indigenous populations in displacement scenarios.
Principle: Corporations and public authorities can be held criminally liable for orchestrating systemic forced displacement, particularly when legal procedures are bypassed, or violence is used.
3. Landmark Cases
Case 1: Narmada Dam Displacement Case (1995–2000)
Facts:
Thousands of people displaced for the Sardar Sarovar Dam project.
Alleged systemic failure to provide proper rehabilitation or compensation.
Legal Findings:
Supreme Court of India monitored compliance under LARR rules.
Investigations revealed some officials and contractors bypassed rehabilitation laws.
Outcome:
Court mandated proper resettlement and rehabilitation packages.
Highlighted corporate and government liability for human rights violations.
Key Principle: Systemic displacement without lawful rehabilitation can constitute criminal liability under IPC Sections 406 and 120B.
Case 2: Singur Tata Nano Land Acquisition Case (2008–2010)
Facts:
Land acquired forcibly for Tata Nano factory in West Bengal.
Farmers alleged coercion and inadequate compensation.
Legal Findings:
High Court and Supreme Court recognized procedural lapses in acquisition.
Government officials liable for violating fair acquisition and rehabilitation principles.
Outcome:
Project relocated; compensation to displaced farmers mandated.
Led to discussions on corporate complicity in forced displacement.
Key Principle: Corporations can be indirectly liable when colluding with authorities to acquire land illegally or coercively.
Case 3: Posco India Steel Project, Odisha (2012–2018)
Facts:
Proposed steel plant required displacement of thousands of villagers.
Allegations of coercion, intimidation, and non-consensual acquisition of land.
Legal Findings:
Investigations revealed local authorities did not follow rehabilitation laws.
Civil rights groups argued systemic violation of human rights.
Outcome:
Protests and litigation delayed the project; partial cancellation of land acquisition.
Demonstrated corporate liability in collusion with public authorities.
Key Principle: Corporations participating in projects involving forced displacement may face liability if due process is not followed.
Case 4: POSCO’s Forced Evictions Protest – Supreme Court Monitoring (2014)
Facts:
Continuous monitoring by SC for illegal evictions in Odisha for POSCO project.
Villagers’ rights under LARR Act 2013 ignored by some officials.
Legal Findings:
Court emphasized criminal and civil liability of officials and corporate intermediaries.
Outcome:
Orders for proper compensation and rehabilitation; project suspended until compliance.
Key Principle: Courts can hold both public authorities and corporate partners accountable for systemic forced displacement.
Case 5: Vedanta’s Alumina Refinery Project, Lanjigarh (2004–2015)
Facts:
Indigenous populations displaced for refinery construction in Odisha.
Allegations of coercion, under-compensation, and denial of rehabilitation benefits.
Legal Findings:
National Green Tribunal (NGT) found Vedanta and government authorities jointly liable for lapses.
Evidence of systemic disregard for local rights and resettlement norms.
Outcome:
Court mandated compliance with LARR provisions; criminal investigation into officials suggested.
Corporate liability recognized as the company benefited from illegal displacement.
Key Principle: Corporate and governmental collusion in forced displacement can lead to liability under domestic and environmental laws.
Case 6: Polavaram Dam Displacement Case (2016–Present)
Facts:
Multi-state mega dam project causing displacement of over 200,000 people.
Allegations of inadequate rehabilitation and forced relocation.
Legal Findings:
Supreme Court emphasized need for strict adherence to R&R policies.
Investigations into collusion between contractors and government authorities ongoing.
Outcome:
Orders for comprehensive rehabilitation; compensation and grievance redressal mechanisms strengthened.
Corporate contractors required to ensure lawful execution.
Key Principle: Systemic forced displacement in mega projects attracts criminal and civil liability for failure to comply with legal and ethical obligations.
4. Patterns and Lessons
Dual Liability: Both corporations and public officials can be held accountable for systemic forced displacement.
Procedural Compliance: Violating rehabilitation laws and bypassing consent processes amplifies liability.
Civil Rights as Criminal Concern: Physical coercion, intimidation, or deprivation of livelihood triggers criminal liability under IPC Sections 120B, 406.
Corporate Complicity Matters: Companies are liable when they collude, benefit from, or fail to prevent illegal displacement.
Judicial Oversight: Courts increasingly enforce rehabilitation and compensation, ensuring accountability.
Human Rights Lens: International law and environmental tribunals recognize displacement without consent as a violation of rights.
RELATED Blog
comments