DATE:
BENCH: Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice S.B. Sinha
FACTS:
The Narmada Bachao Andolan case centered around the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River, affecting the states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat. Given the complexities surrounding the control, usage, and equitable distribution of the river’s water, the Indian government established a specialized tribunal under the Interstate Water Disputes Act of 1956 to address these disputes. The tribunal played a crucial role in determining various aspects of the project, including the maximum permissible height of the dam. It also assigned Gujarat the responsibility of overseeing the dam’s construction, ensuring that the project adhered to the stipulated guidelines.
Following the tribunal’s decision, the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) and a review committee were constituted to monitor the project’s implementation and ensure compliance with legal and environmental standards. Additionally, an environmental subgroup was formed under the NCA’s supervision to evaluate the ecological impact of the dam’s construction. However, as the project advanced, concerns regarding its environmental and human repercussions escalated. In 1994, petitions were filed in court, seeking a judicial review of the project and urging authorities to mandate essential measures such as catchment area treatment and rehabilitation of displaced communities before filling the reservoir. The petitioners invoked Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, and cited the International Labour Organisation’s Convention No. 107, emphasizing the rights of indigenous and tribal populations affected by large-scale development projects.
This legal battle underscored the deficiencies in India's environmental regulatory framework, particularly in comparison to other jurisdictions like the United States. In landmark cases such as Sierra Club v. Robert Froehlke, U.S. courts have halted development projects that failed to comply with environmental laws, demonstrating a more stringent approach to ecological preservation. In contrast, the Indian legal system at the time lacked robust mechanisms to enforce environmental safeguards before proceeding with major infrastructure projects, bringing attention to the need for stronger environmental governance and judicial oversight.
ISSUES:
The case raised several critical legal and environmental issues. One of the primary concerns was whether the environmental clearance granted by the Union of India was issued without conducting a thorough study and proper consideration of the project's environmental impact. Additionally, the petitioners questioned whether the conditions imposed by the Ministry of Environment as prerequisites for the project’s approval were disregarded during its execution. Another significant issue was whether the Narmada Control Authority (NCA), despite being an independent regulatory body, demonstrated bias in approving the project, thereby compromising its duty to ensure fairness and adherence to environmental and rehabilitation policies.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court upheld the continuation of the Sardar Sarovar Project, permitting construction of the dam up to a height of 90 meters, subject to compliance with the environmental clearances and conditions set by the designated Environmental Subgroup. Any further increase in height would require fresh approval to ensure adherence to environmental standards. The Court mandated that the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) oversee these permissions, relying on the reports of the Grievance Redressal Authorities, which were authorized to seek further directions from the Review Authority when necessary.
The Supreme Court recognized the pressing need to balance development imperatives with environmental and human rights concerns. It acknowledged that India continues to struggle with severe water scarcity, particularly in arid regions, and emphasized that harnessing the Narmada River’s potential could alleviate these hardships. The Court viewed the project as essential for providing water, electricity, and irrigation to millions, linking access to these basic resources with the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. While acknowledging the necessity of environmental safeguards, the Court placed significant reliance on the regulatory mechanisms in place, directing that they be strictly adhered to rather than obstructing the project altogether.
Furthermore, the Court addressed concerns about Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and policy decision-making, cautioning against the misuse of PILs to hinder developmental initiatives unless there was clear evidence of legal violations. It underscored the principle of separation of powers, affirming that policy matters should primarily be left to the government’s discretion unless they contravene established laws. Additionally, the Court emphasized the importance of integrating marginalized communities into the mainstream by ensuring their rehabilitation and access to essential services such as drinking water and electricity. This approach reaffirmed the judiciary’s commitment to fostering inclusive development while maintaining environmental and social justice.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India and Others reflects a pragmatic approach to balancing development with environmental and human rights concerns. By allowing the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam up to 90 meters while mandating strict adherence to environmental clearances, the Court sought to ensure that economic and infrastructural progress did not come at the expense of ecological sustainability and social justice. The ruling underscored the dire need for water resources in India, particularly in drought-prone regions, and linked the project’s benefits to the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. At the same time, it reinforced the importance of regulatory oversight, directing authorities to comply with environmental and rehabilitation requirements before further expansion. The judgment also highlighted the limitations of judicial intervention in policy matters, emphasizing that unless there was a clear violation of law, courts should not obstruct government-led developmental initiatives. Additionally, the Court addressed concerns regarding the misuse of Public Interest Litigations (PILs), cautioning that while PILs play a crucial role in protecting public rights, they should not be employed as a tool to indiscriminately halt projects of national significance. Ultimately, the decision reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in ensuring that large-scale development projects are implemented responsibly, with due regard for both environmental safeguards and the welfare of displaced communities.
info@adhwaitha.com
