Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India and Ors.
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India and Ors. (1999)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: AIR 2000 SC 3758
Bench: Justice S. P. Bharucha, Justice B. N. Kirpal, Justice G. N. Ray
Background:
The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), a social movement led by activists like Medha Patkar, opposed the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River.
Their concerns included:
Displacement of thousands of tribal and rural families.
Environmental degradation.
Inadequate rehabilitation and compensation for affected people.
The Union of India and the State Governments were pushing forward with the dam project, emphasizing benefits like irrigation, drinking water, and hydroelectric power.
Issues Before the Court:
Whether the construction of the dam violated fundamental rights of the displaced persons (right to life, livelihood, etc.).
Whether the environmental and rehabilitation norms were being properly followed.
Whether the project should be stopped or modified to protect the interests of displaced people.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
The Court did not stay the construction of the dam but laid down several important conditions and guidelines:
Strict adherence to rehabilitation and resettlement:
The Court emphasized that displaced persons must be adequately rehabilitated before submergence of their lands.
Rehabilitation must be proper, timely, and in accordance with policies.
Environmental safeguards:
Construction should follow environmental standards and clearances.
Periodic review:
The Court would monitor the implementation of rehabilitation and environmental protection.
Balancing development and human rights:
The Court recognized the benefits of the dam for millions but stressed it should not come at the cost of fundamental rights of displaced persons.
The Court rejected the plea for a complete halt but acknowledged the grievances, ordering that concerns be addressed seriously.
Significance of the Case:
This case is a landmark in balancing development with environmental protection and human rights.
It set a precedent on how large infrastructure projects should consider rehabilitation, environment, and rights of affected communities.
The judgment emphasized the role of the judiciary in ensuring sustainable development.
It also highlighted the principle of “prior informed consent” of affected people as an essential component of rehabilitation.
Summary Table:
| Aspect | Summary |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India and Ors. |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Year | 1999 |
| Core Issue | Displacement and environmental impact of Sardar Sarovar Dam |
| Judgment | No stay on construction; strict conditions on rehabilitation and environment |
| Key Principle | Balancing development with fundamental rights protection |
| Impact | Set guidelines for rehabilitation and environmental safeguards in development projects |
Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments