NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V.

UNION OF INDIA – CRITICAL

ANALYSIS

SRI PRASAD. J
BC0160048

The Sardar Sarovar Dam in Gujarat is one of the largest dams on the river and was one of the
first centers of movement. It is part of the Narmada Dam Project, whose main objective is to
provide irrigation and electricity to people in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.
Narmada Bachao Andolan, also known as the NBA, is a public protest movement against a dam
on the Narmada River, which started in 1985 and involved farmers, fishermen, workers, and
others in the Narmada Valley, as well as intellectuals, including environmentalists, human rights
activists, scientists, academics. Artists who advocate for fair and sustainable development. It was
formed by activist Medha Patkar along with her colleagues. Aid to displaced people on the other
side of the Sardar-Sarovar Dam began. To date, more than 40,000 families residing in these
flooded areas of Sardar-Sarovar have been displaced without rehabilitation.

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India:

The Government of India has developed a plan to build a series of dams on the Narmada River.
And, therefore, they launched a multi-crore project that can bring big revenue to the government.
This is one of the most promising and complex plans in the history of India. In 1978, the
Government of India turned to the World Bank for help in building a dam complex along the
river as part of the Narmada Valley Development Project, also called the Narmada Project. The
Narmada project included the creation of thirty large dams, 135 medium dams and 3,000 small
dams. The government has promised that these dams will help portable water for nearly 40
million people and irrigation for more than 6 million hectares of land, hydroelectric power for
the entire region and employment opportunities. The center claimed that dams were important
for the economic development of India, and claimed that these benefits were to be gained by
millions of people living in the Narmada Valley. However, the benefits can be costly, including
the displacement of tens of thousands of people and significant environmental damage.
The Narmada Water Dispute Court was established in 1969 to resolve a dispute over the
exchange of river water between Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra. The Narmad court
sought to create conditions for the resettlement and rehabilitation of people displaced due to
dams. The Tribunal was assisted by several technical experts. But this group of experts lacked
sociologists, anthropologists or environmental engineers, which cannot be ignored. The final
judgment of the Court was in favor of the construction of a dam across the entire height of the
reservoir.
The “Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India” was a petition of the court in which they
prayed that the respondents could not begin the construction of the dam. The court upheld the
decision of the Narmada Water Dispute Court by setting a condition. The condition was
assistance and rehabilitation of the displaced.

Judgment analysis:
The trial begins with a conversation about the history of the dam construction, from the moment
the idea of building the Narmada was born until the start of construction. It provides technical
details about the dam and analyzes the distribution of water among the states. The petitioners'
allegations were discussed in four sections: general issues, environmental issues, assistance and
rehabilitation issues, and issues related to the review of the Tribunal's decision.
But the decision suggested that when such projects are undertaken and hundreds of millions of
dollars of government money are spent, PIL cannot be allowed to challenge a political decision
made over time. It is contrary to national interests that decisions about development projects can
be questioned after a few years, during which public funds were spent on the project. And
therefore, he continued to acknowledge only one of the allegations, namely the issue of measures
for resettlement and rehabilitation of tribes under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In
discussing the population affected by the project, the petitioners alleged that flooding the villages
for the reservoir would displace the thousands of tribes who lived in the area for generations. A
denial of this was adequate rehabilitation and compensation packages.
The court declined to discuss the Court's decision. The court noted that there would be a
violation of article 21 of the Indian Constitution. He extensively revised article 21 of the Indian
Constitution and recognized and included the right to rehabilitation in a fair and equitable
manner. In environmental matters, the court stated that dams play a vital role in guaranteeing
irrigation to ensure food security, domestic and industrial water supply, hydroelectric power and
flood prevention. It also argues that the movement of people alone should not lead to a violation
of their fundamental or other rights. The court consulted with a study from the famous Madhya
Pradesh University and concluded that the petitioners had distorted the region's social
demographics and that the tribes really wanted to settle as part of the rehabilitation plan, and that
the classes that owned the land did not want to do so. , since the labor costs at that time will
increase.
Another notable part of the decision is that the Court attacked the petitioners' locus standi, which
was not the case before on a scale of this nature. The ruling states that PIL was an innovation, in
fact, to protect and protect the human rights of those people who could not protect themselves.
Over time, PIL's jurisdiction has expanded to cover areas such as honesty in public life, the
provision of generous payments in the form of licenses, environmental protection, and the like.
PIL is like a balloon and therefore must not inflate enough to explode. The court stated that "PIL
should not be allowed to degenerate into public interest litigation or private litigation." The court
determined that the Petition was a tactic to stop and delay the construction of the dam. But this
will violate the goals of justice for those who are really affected by the project.
This case caught human rights defenders of the Supreme Court by surprise. The court, probably
for the first time in such an important decision, decided to adopt a state program for the
implementation of a large infrastructure project that will lead to the displacement of thousands of
people. Some believe that this decision in some way supports and encourages government abuse
of power. The implications of this decision were extensive. This has taken its toll on the rest of
the established environmental law..