AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA

National Green Tribunal

SUBMITTED TO: ` SUBMITTED BY:

Dr Aqueeda Khan Priyanshu Singh
A032170123025
LL.B (Hons.)

0
 ABSTRACT

The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) was a social movement in India protesting the
construction of dams on the Narmada River, particularly the Sardar Sarovar Dam. The case
involved numerous legal battles and protests, advocating for the rights of local communities
affected by displacement due to dam construction. The NBA raised concerns about
environmental impacts, displacement of tribal communities, and the lack of proper
rehabilitation and compensation. The case went through various legal proceedings in courts,
highlighting the complexities of balancing developmental projects with social and
environmental concerns. Ultimately, it sparked debates on development, human rights, and
environmental conservation in India.

Keywords:Narmada Bachao Andolan Case, Environmental law, Present, Judgement

1
 INTRODUCTION

The story of damming the Narmada has been one wrought with controversies and intense
political wrangling. It has been a hotly-debated issue where one cannot decide for sure which
side of the argument is best suitable. The development versus sustainability argument plays
out here in a manner which the Indian socio-political and legal scene had never seen before.

In the 1990‟s age of Public Interest Litigation and electronic media, the public debate on the
Sardar Sarovar project reached its crescendo with this judgement and the controversy that
surrounds it. However, I will tell about 2 issues of this judgement. I would firstly deal with
the contention the judgement had dealt and satisfied itself with; namely that of the
Rehabilitation measures and the law around Article 21, especially in the given case where the
oustees and Project Affected Persons (PAP) are mainly STs. In this regard, it is noticed that
from the catena of decisions coming in from the Supreme Court, that this is one of the few
cases that the Supreme Court has not followed the usual path, the general trend of the
Supreme Court to very actively stand up for the disadvantaged‟s cause (even overlooking
some procedural lapses they might have made), the Supreme Court‟s advocacy of the
“precautionary principle”1 among others were not followed. Instead, we see here an
overwhelming adherence to “national interest”, and that the dam‟ construction resulting in
displacement of thousands of people must be allowed for the greater common good. It is not
very often that the Supreme Court has taken a rather utilitarian view of an environmental PIL;
hence it is my endeavour to cover this aspect. But first, a general analysis of the judgement as
a whole is done.

1
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715

2
 THE JUDGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW

The judgement, ruled by a maturity of 21, Kirpal,J., speaking for Anand,C.J., and himself,
and Bharucha,J. differing, came on 18th October 2000. It starts off with talking about the
history of the levee ‟ s construction, right from the commencement of the idea of damming
the Narmada, to the starting of construction. It outlines the specialised details about the levee
and also discusses the allotment of water to the countries. The contentions of the Pleaders are
bandied, which have been framed in four main headlines;

1. General issues

2. Issues regarding terrain

3. Issues regarding relief and recuperation( of tribals)

4. Issues regarding review of Bars Award

The Pleaders also sought an independent judicial study to be done to dissect the stylish
estimates for the costs and benefits of the entire design. The State of Madhya Pradesh joined
the Pleaders in as much as it has also contended for reduction in the height of the levee so as
to reduce the extent of submergence and the consequent relegation. The Supreme Court,
while addressing each contention, observed that the Pleaders had been shamefaced of
latches( to which Bharucha,J. disagreed2). The maturity logic went therefore When similar
systems are accepted and hundreds of crores of public plutocrat is spent, individual or
organisations in the garb of PIL can not be permitted to challenge the policy decision taken
after a lapse of time. It's against the public interest and negative to the established principles
of law that opinions to take over experimental systems are permitted to be challenged after
a number of times during which period public plutocrat has been spent in the prosecution of
the design3

And in this way, went on to admit only one of the contentionsviz. the issue of resettlement
and recuperation measures for tribals under the dimension of Composition 21 of the
Constitution of India. In his dissent, Bharucha,J. said that “ it would be against public interest
to decline relief only on the ground that the Court was approached delinquently ”4

2
Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751, para 278
3
Ibid, para 47
4
Supra no. 2

3
The issue of recuperation of the design- affected population came up for discussion next,
and counsel for Petitioners Shanti Bhushan argued that the submergence of the townlets for
the Force would dislocate thousands of tribals who have lived in the area for conceptions.

The disproof from the Repliers was that the tribals would be given away proper recuperation
packages and indemnification. The other specialized premises with respects to height and
water capacity of the levee and force were meetly rebutted, these are specialized premises
and out of the compass of our deliberation.

The Court declined to bandy the Tribunal’s( NWDT) award as they were reticent to have
the Pleaders to challenge the correctness thereof.5 The Tribunal had formerly rewarded the
country of Gujarat the birthright to make the levee to a height of 455 bases, and applicable
relief and recuperation measures, thereby striking off the fourth contention.

The Court did note that there would be lawbreakings of Composition 21 of the Constitution
of India and Convention 107 of the ILO on forcible or unlawful relegation of the PAPs6 It
takes an extended prospect of Composition 21 of the Constitution of India7 and recognizes
and includes the right to recuperation in a precisely and indifferent manner.

This has been one of the highlights of the case, that Composition 21 has been honored and
held supreme in an case where the underprivileged were in dire want of proper resettlement
measures. On the Environmental effects, the Court took a paternalistic prospect and spoke
that heads play a “vital part in furnishing irrigation for food screen, domestic and artificial
water force, hydroelectric authority and keeping flood tide waters back”8.

It also asserts that the relegation of persons need not „ per se result in the violation of their
abecedarian or other birthrights ‟. The Court treated a study by a showy Madhya Pradesh
university and concluded that the gregarious demographics of the region had been twisted by
the Pleaders and that the tribals were indeed wanting to settle under the R&R gambit, and
that the land retaining classes did not want to do consequently as the labour charges would
also boost. In a tone that was observed since the morning of the judgment’s perusal, the
Court also charged the Pleaders locus standi towards the conclusion corridor, commodity
which had not been done in a case of this magnitude and this nature ahead. It spoke

5
Supra no. 2, para 51
6
Ibid, para 52
7
M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa Publications Nagpur, 5th Ed., 2008, pp. 1138
8
Ibid, para 59

4
“ Public Interest Action (PIL) was an invention basically to guard and cover the mortal
rights of those people who were unfit to cover themselves. With the passage of time the PIL
governance has been bunching so as to encompass within its dimension subjects similar as
probity in public life, granting of largess in the form of licences, guarding terrain and the
suchlike. But the balloon shouldn't be inflated so that it bursts. PIL shouldn't be allowed to
deteriorate to getting hype Interest Action or Private curiousness Litigation9.”

They took the prospect that the Petition was a tactic to stall and lag the construction of the
levee. still, it's submitted that this would checkmate the bounds of justice for those who are
authentically affected by the design and the Court should have involved itself more deeply
and fully into the conclusion.

The Court eyed the levee as the nostrum to the cases of low authority product and
irrigation cases. This stymied prospect of the Court has led to great review and has been
critiqued considerably, which has been bandied in the coming chapter.

9
Ibid, para 226

5
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA: A DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES AND TRENDS

A simplistic perusal of the judgment would baffle an bystander of the chain of opinions
coming from Apex Court. It isn't veritably frequently that the Court takes a preferably
utilitarian prospect of an environmental PIL, and bone does wonder, what makes Narmada
Bachao Andolan( NBA) consequently nonidentical? The rejoinder, in my opinion, lies in the
entire political environment of the case. I quote prestigious magistrate S P Sathe:

“... It soon came putative that a motion with Gandhian methodology was not likely to yield
the same fates against a public government as it did against the social government. public
governments could go to be more ruthless and less popular. NBA was frequently painted as
an antidevelopment organisation. ”10

To explain compactly, the NBA is a gregarious motion that's commanded by Medha Patkar,
who has campaigned vociferously against the damming of the Narmada. The gregarious and
environmental charges of the levee far overweigh the advantages, is their long- standing
claim. Also, at the onset, it's stated that the gut of Composition 21 revolves around the
expression procedure established by law.

To connect the two, we extend the separate vestments to an embracing knot. We detect this
thread in the politics of evolution and the eidolon of dragging Composition 21 to the
security of the environment11 still, the knot ties itself preferably strangely as we know the
country itself being the damager of the terrain, as defied to the private parties we usually
tend to know in the Supreme Court's corner opinions on the security of the terrain.

A voluminous hydro- electric cum irrigation design similar as the Sardar Sarovar would
bring in its share of advantages to the country, but at what cost? The NBA had neared the
Court with the anticipation that the Court would advance them a patient observance and the
activist12 story of the Court post Maneka Gandhi v Union of India13. still, this wasn't to be.
We observe that the Supreme Court has taken to forgive this cost in the name of „ public
interest ‟. The Supreme Court’s judgement is discerned as a dissatisfaction to the thousands
of people who have to remove from the land they've lived in for conceptions, to a true

10
S. P. Sathe, Supreme Court and NBA, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 46 (Nov. 11-17, 2000), pp.
3990
11
Famously illustrated in Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420, and the M C Mehta cases
12
Sathe emphasizes on this point, supra no. 10
13
AIR 1978 SC 597

6
recuperation unit where impartiality and Loveliness in carrying the proper indemnification
is, but only on paper14 From accounts of sociologists similar as Mike Levien of UC
Berkeley, the indemnification would noway reach the fatalities on time, with numerous
oustees being paid cash on the spot rather of being granted agrarian cultivable land as had
been promised15.

The Supreme Court must have kept in mind this reality of the conditions and not gratified
itself with “Nehruvian idealism”16 without coming to tours with the realities of the
voluminous- scale design. Shiv Vishwanathan indeed goes to the extent of making an
Orwellian reference to the Supreme Court’s judgement, calling the Supreme Court’s politics
of evolution the new newspeak!17The judgement has had a voluminous jolt on the converse
of swash systems and heads internationally as well18

There have been numerous other detainments and setbacks in the recuperation of the PAPs.
The Narmada Water disagreement Tribunal( NWDT) Award had specially stated that all
PAPs must be rehabilitated and resettled before construction work on the levee begins.19 The
townies should immaculately be shifted one time to six months before submergence. still,
this isn't the case.

In the solicitation filed before the Supreme Court20, whose judgement came in 2005, 48
townies of Jalsindhi (one of the townlets affected by the design and which was slated for
submergence) and other girding townlets, the Court was faced with the daunting, yet not
fully unanticipated prospect of the earlier judge’s directions not being followed in letter and
spirit. The grim reality of the bureaucracy in India had come to light again, and the Apex
Court had to intermediate. Coming to each aspect of the judgement, I agree with the
maturity opinion that a better result could have been landed at, had the Pleaders neared the
Court before. still Bharucha,J. is absolutely right in observing that a bare detention or laches
in filing the PIL shouldn't checkmate the bounds of justice and relief to the public be

14
A discussion on this is carried forward in Upendra Baxi, The Crisis of the Indian Legal System, Vikas
Publications, New Delhi, 1983; pp. 5
15
Mike Levien, Narmada and the Myth of Rehabilitation, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 33 (Aug.
19-25, 2006), pp. 3582
16
Shiv Visvanathan, Supreme Court Constructs a Dam, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 48 (Nov. 25
- Dec. 1, 2000), pp. 4176-77
17
Ibid, pp. 4179
18
For further discussion, Phillippe Cullet, Human Rights and Displacement: The Indian Supreme Court Decision
on Sardar Sarovar in International Perspective, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 4
(Oct., 2001), pp. 973-987
19
Supra no. 15
20
Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 2994

7
refused therefore. The assertions in relation to the specialised nature of the levee(e.g.
height, discharge per million acre- bases) are outside the compass of our deliberation, the
judgement also didn't manipulate it, being a specialized procedure matter of the government.
still, it's nearly near to the twentieth runner of the judgement that the grade begins to
revise, the Court starts taking specialized assertions and conversations and inserts them into
a virtuous aeroplane.21 After all, which selfrespecting Indian could argue against the hall of
“public interest”? In the maturity judgement, the operation of the principle of “preventative
principle” was refused in this case. They went along on to enunciate:

“In the present-day case we aren't covered with the contaminating assiduity
which is being established. What's being constructed is a voluminous levee. The
levee is neither a nuclear establishment nor a contaminating assiduity. The
construction of a levee really would affect in the revise of terrain but it'll not be
accurate to suppose that the construction of a voluminous levee like the Sardar
Sarovar will affect in ecological debacle . India has an experience of over 40
times in the construction of heads. The experience doesn't show off that
construction of a voluminous levee isn't bring operative or leads to ecological or
environmental declination. On the negative there has been ecological up
gradation with the construction of voluminous heads. What's the jolt on terrain
with the construction of a levee is well- known in India”22

Easily the Supreme Court brought around down by hops and bounds the environmental
incommodity of the levee in a single stroke. “ Ecological upgradation ” with the
construction of voluminous heads? When all across the world, the inhospitable goods of
voluminous heads are being bandied and batted upon23, why does the Indian country want
to encourage a voluminous levee as the sole provider of irrigation and „ clean ‟ dynamism?
It's submitted that the sense exercised by the Supreme Court is disputable, and carries
portentous prospects for the future of the law on voluminous structure systems of the
country and environmental law in general.

This comes indeed after N K P Dressing, the Union Minister of Energy and Water, remarked
in 1995 that “... we aren't going in for voluminous heads any further ” in the environment

21
Supra no. 16, pp. 4179
22
Supra no. 2, para 121
23
The Dirty Secret of Hydro-electric Power, The New Scientist, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046

8
of the rising environmental mindfulness descrying voluminous levee projects24. The World
Commission on heads, a body supported by the UNEP and the IUCN( to both of which
India is a member), easily lays out in its 2000 report25 that voluminous heads are
environmentally unsound and the goods are important and are of long- tenure nature.
What, also, should have been done by the Court? It's submitted that the other contentions
drawn by the Petitioner should also have been appeared into.

The environmental concurrence was given away by the Prime Minister in 1987 and the
displeased party should have come to the Court also. still, in 2000, the Court could have
asked for better perpetration of the relief and recuperation measures, this would have
avoided the 2002 solicitation by the 48 townies.

It had slipped the part of the champion of mortal rights26 and the Pleaders neared it with
the anticipation that their cases would be managed. The contentions with relation to the
general effects and the Tribunal Awards need not have been queried, but the Supreme Court
should have opened them for examination.

I'm in consensus with Justice Bharucha’s dissent for the utmost of the portion Especially:

The two major criteria – the design should maximise profitable responses and it
should be technically doable – are noway longer considered acceptable to decide
the advisability or indeed the viability of the design. It's now extensively
recognised that the evolution trouble may constantly produce not only sought
for advantages, but other frequently unexpected – undesirable consequences as
well which may abate the socio- profitable advantages for which the design is
designed.27

The only debit the dissent suffers from is the putative physical impracticality of stopping
the work at such a late juncture and the putatively last- nanosecond measure would be
discerned as antidevelopment. still it's submitted that further deliberation, debate and check
is demanded to salvage what's formerly an environmental and socio- politically speaking, a
undyed giant.

24
L C Jain, Dams versus Drinking Water: Exploring the Narmada Judgment, Parisar Publications, 2001, pp. 27
25
Dams And Development: A New Framework; The Report Of The World Commission On Dams, November
2000, pp. 40, 109
26
Gobind Das, Supreme Court of India: An Overview, in Ed. Kirpal, Desai, Subramanium, Dhavan,
Ramachandran, Supreme But Not Infallible: Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India, Oxford Press India,
2000, pp. 24-25
27
Supra no. 2, para 255

9
 STATUS OF NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AT PRESENT

On October 2000, the Supreme Court gave the blessing for the construction of Sardar
Sarovar Dam. The court concluded that the height of the levee be expressed to 90 m. This
height is much advanced than the 88 m whichanti-dam activists demanded, but it's lesser
than the proffered height of 130m. after the Supreme Court sentence, the Gujarat
Government has taken up the construction of the levee. As the World Bank fell back its
backing in 1993, the design is now largely capitalised by the country governments and
request borrowings. Now the design is anticipated to be completely completed by 2025.

10
 FACTS OF THE CASE

The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) is a socio-environmental movement that emerged in

the early 1980s in India, primarily to protest the construction of large dams along the
Narmada River. Led by social activists Medha Patkar, Baba Amte, and others, the movement
aimed to protect the rights and livelihoods of communities affected by the construction of
these dams, particularly the Sardar Sarovar Dam.

The Sardar Sarovar Dam was part of the Narmada Valley Development Project, aimed at
harnessing the river's waters for irrigation, hydropower generation, and water supply.
However, the construction of the dam led to significant displacement of indigenous
communities, farmers, and other marginalized groups residing in the Narmada valley.

Here are the key facts and developments related to the Narmada Bachao Andolan case:

1. Background and Beginning of the Movement28:

● The NBA was officially established in 1985 as a non-violent protest against

the construction of large dams, especially the Sardar Sarovar Dam.

● The movement focused on the issues of displacement, loss of land, inadequate

rehabilitation, and adverse environmental impacts on the river ecosystem.

2. Displacement and Rehabilitation:

● The construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam led to the displacement of

thousands of families residing in the submergence area.29

● Rehabilitation efforts were criticized for being inadequate and failing to

provide suitable alternatives to the affected communities. Many displaced
families did not receive promised compensation or suitable rehabilitation sites.

3. Legal Battles and Supreme Court Interventions:

● The NBA filed various petitions and cases in courts, challenging the
construction of dams and seeking proper rehabilitation for displaced
communities.

28
India: Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 10 S.C.C. 664, 18 October 2000
29
The Dam and the Nation: Displacement and Resettlement in the Narmada Valley
February 1999The Journal of Asian Studies 58(1)

11
 ● In 1991, the Supreme Court issued interim orders halting the construction of
the dam multiple times due to concerns over rehabilitation.

● In 2000, the Supreme Court gave clearance to raise the dam's height, with
conditions for rehabilitation and environmental protection.

4. Environmental Concerns:

● Environmentalists raised concerns about the ecological impact of large dams

on the river ecosystem, including loss of biodiversity, altered river flow, and
adverse effects on downstream areas.

5. Support and International Attention:

● The NBA received support from various human rights organizations,

environmentalists, and international groups concerned about the rights of
displaced communities and the environmental impact of dam construction.

● The movement gained international attention, drawing focus on the issues of

indigenous rights, displacement, and environmental degradation caused by
large-scale developmental projects.

6. Ongoing Activism and Impact:

● Despite legal battles and intermittent victories, the NBA continued its
activism, advocating for the rights of affected communities and highlighting
the environmental consequences of large dam projects.

● The movement's impact led to increased scrutiny of government policies

related to displacement, rehabilitation, and environmental clearance for large
development projects.

7. Continuing Challenges and Resolution Efforts:

● Challenges persist regarding the proper rehabilitation and compensation of

displaced communities even after court interventions and government
initiatives.

12
 ● Ongoing efforts by activists and organizations aim to address the
long-standing issues of rehabilitation and environmental preservation in the
Narmada Valley.

The Narmada Bachao Andolan remains an emblematic movement in India, highlighting the
complexities and challenges associated with large-scale development projects, displacement
of marginalized communities, and the need for comprehensive rehabilitation and
environmental protection measures.

13
 CHALLENGES

The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) has faced several challenges and encountered various
problems throughout its duration, primarily revolving around the construction of dams,
especially the Sardar Sarovar Dam, and its impact on the communities living in the Narmada
Valley. Some of the significant problems include:

1. Displacement and Rehabilitation Issues30: The construction of dams led to the

displacement of thousands of families living in the Narmada Valley. The rehabilitation
and resettlement efforts for these displaced communities were fraught with problems.
Many families did not receive adequate compensation or suitable alternative lands,
and the promised rehabilitation sites often lacked basic amenities and livelihood
options, disrupting the socio-economic fabric of these communities.

2. Environmental Concerns: Environmentalists raised alarms about the adverse impacts

of large dams on the environment, including altered river flow, loss of biodiversity,
and ecological disruptions downstream. The construction of dams has often led to
irreversible changes in the river ecosystem, affecting flora, fauna, and the overall
ecology of the region.

3. Legal Challenges and Court Interventions: While the NBA filed numerous legal cases
and petitions to halt or modify the dam construction, the legal process was protracted
and complex. Though the Supreme Court intervened at various points, there were
limitations in ensuring comprehensive rehabilitation and addressing environmental
concerns effectively. Balancing developmental aspirations with environmental and
social concerns posed intricate legal challenges.31

4. Government Policies and Implementation: The implementation of rehabilitation and

resettlement policies by government authorities often fell short of addressing the
needs of the affected communities. There were issues related to transparency,
accountability, and the actual fulfillment of promises made to those displaced.

30
Phillippe Cullet, Human Rights and Displacement: The Indian Supreme Court Decision on Sardar Sarovar in
International Perspective, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Oct., 2001), pp. 973
31
https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/17165.pdf

14
 5. Activist Safety and Harassment32: Activists associated with the NBA faced threats,
harassment, and even legal challenges, creating an environment of intimidation and
hindrance to their advocacy efforts. This posed challenges to the continuity and
effectiveness of the movement.

6. Public Perception and Support: While the NBA received support from certain sections
of society, there were also debates and differing opinions among the public regarding
the trade-offs between development and the rights of the affected communities. Public
perception influenced the movement's traction and support.

7. Continuing Challenges and Unresolved Issues: Even after years of activism and legal
battles, there remain ongoing challenges in ensuring proper rehabilitation and
compensation for the affected communities. The issues related to the Narmada
Bachao Andolan have not been entirely resolved, leading to persistent socio-economic
and environmental struggles for the displaced populations.

The Narmada Bachao Andolan case represents a complex intersection of developmental

aspirations, environmental concerns, and social justice issues. Despite significant efforts and
attention garnered by the movement, many challenges persist, highlighting the need for more
comprehensive and inclusive approaches to address the grievances of affected communities
and to ensure sustainable development practices.

32
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/nba-activists-harassing-local-villagers/articleshow/1742140158.cms
('NBA activists harassing local villagers')

15
 ANALYSIS

The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) case in the Supreme Court of India represents a
landmark legal battle that spanned several decades. The Supreme Court played a pivotal role
in addressing the concerns raised by the NBA regarding the construction of dams, primarily
the Sardar Sarovar Dam, and its impact on the environment and affected communities in the
Narmada Valley. Here's an analysis of the Supreme Court's involvement in the NBA case:

1. Interim Orders33 and Interventions:

● The Supreme Court issued several interim orders halting the construction of
the Sardar Sarovar Dam at various stages due to concerns over rehabilitation
of displaced communities. These interventions highlighted the Court's
willingness to address socio-economic and environmental issues arising from
large-scale developmental projects.

2. Balancing Development and Rights:

● The Court grappled with the balancing act between developmental projects
aimed at water management, irrigation, and power generation and the
protection of the rights of the displaced communities. It attempted to reconcile
the competing interests of development and human rights.

3. Conditions and Guidelines34:

● In its judgments, the Supreme Court laid down conditions and guidelines for
the construction of the dam, emphasizing the need for proper rehabilitation of
displaced families and environmental safeguards. These conditions aimed at
ensuring that the project did not proceed at the cost of disregarding the rights
of affected communities and environmental concerns.

4. Legal Precedents and Environmental Considerations:

33
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999. Bench: Dr. A.S. Cj, S.P. Bharucha,
B.N. Kirpal
34
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Others on 18 October, 2000. Author: Kirpal Bench: B. N.
Kirpal, Dr. A. Anand

16
 ● The NBA case set legal precedents regarding the importance of environmental
impact assessments (EIAs) and the necessity of complying with environmental
regulations before the execution of major projects. It underscored the
significance of evaluating the environmental repercussions of such projects.

5. Challenges in Implementation and Enforcement:

● Despite the Court's directives, challenges persisted in the effective

implementation and enforcement of rehabilitation measures. Ensuring
compliance with the Court's orders posed practical challenges, including
monitoring and accountability issues.

6. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Advocacy Role:

● The NBA case served as a significant example of public interest litigation,

showcasing the Court's role in addressing issues that concern the larger public
and the environment. It also highlighted the advocacy role of the Court in
safeguarding the rights of marginalized communities.

7. Continued Activism and Unresolved Issues:

● Despite the Court's interventions, the NBA continued its activism, highlighting
persisting issues in rehabilitation and environmental protection. The case
raised questions about the long-term sustainability and inclusivity of the
development model adopted by the government.

17
 CONCLUSION

The Narmada Bachao Andolan case took the mortal birthrights and civil liberties spectators
of the Apex Court by surprise. The Court, for maybe the first time in such a major
resolution, concluded to grasp the State’s docket to bear on with a major structure design
which would affect the relegation of thousands of people.

With respects to the Sardar Sarovar Project, farther action brought around relief and
recuperation measures to lesser and stricter scrutiny, still the design was dallied and
eventually the first phase of the design came functional in June 2006. Its height stayed at
453 bases and has an active capacity of boxy meters28.

70000 people were displaced and resettled, substantially in Gujarat.

The impacts of this judgement are expansive. It has created a indenture in the else
wellstanding body of environmental law and indigenous body of justice the Supreme Court
has painstakingly created from the mid-1980's. The country is now all the more important
and now has a Supreme Court resolution which would be exercised as a defence for larger
infrastructural systems and relief and recuperation measures have been largely relaxed.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's involvement in the Narmada Bachao Andolan case
signifies its proactive role in addressing socio-environmental concerns arising from
developmental projects. While the Court's interventions aimed at balancing development with
the protection of human rights and the environment, challenges in implementation,
enforcement, and the resolution of complex socio-economic issues remained. The case
underscores the need for comprehensive and sustained efforts to address the multifaceted
challenges arising from large-scale developmental projects.

18
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

● Books referred:
1. Nick Cullather, The Hungry World: America's Cold War Battle Against Poverty in
Asia, Harvard Univ. Press, 2010
2. L C Jain, Dams versus Drinking Water: Exploring the Narmada Judgment, Parisar
Publications, 2001
3. Dams And Development: A New Framework; The Report Of The World Commission
On Dams, November 2000
4. Upendra Baxi, The Crisis of the Indian Legal System, Vikas Publications, New Delhi,
1983
5. Ed. Kirpal, Desai, Subramanium, Dhavan, Ramachandran, Supreme But Not
Infallible: Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India, Oxford Press India, 2000
6. M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa Publications Nagpur, 5th Ed., 2008

● Articles referred:
1. The Dirty Secret of Hydro-electric Power, The New Scientist,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046 (retrieved on 19th November 2023)
2. Mike Levien, Narmada and the Myth of Rehabilitation, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 33 (Aug. 19-25, 2006), pp. 3582
3. Shiv Visvanathan, Supreme Court Constructs a Dam, Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. 35, No. 48 (Nov. 25 - Dec. 1, 2000), pp. 4176
4. S. P. Sathe, Supreme Court and NBA, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 46
(Nov. 11-17, 2000), pp. 3990
5. Phillippe Cullet, Human Rights and Displacement: The Indian Supreme Court
Decision on Sardar Sarovar in International Perspective, The International and
Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Oct., 2001), pp. 973
6. Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Others on 18 October, 2000,
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1938608/ (retrieved on 19th November 2023)
7. Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999,
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69248/ (retrieved on 19th November 2023)

19