Judgement Briefs

Environmental Law

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India

(2000) 10 SCC 664

Citation
(2000) 10 SCC 664
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
18 Oct 2000
Bench
A.S. Anand, CJI; S.P. Bharucha & B.N. Kirpal, JJ.

Facts

  • The Sardar Sarovar Dam was constructed across the River Narmada as an inter-State project involving Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan.
  • Its proposed benefits included:
  • irrigation;
  • drinking-water supply;
  • electricity generation;
  • drought relief.
  • The project also involved:
  • submergence of villages and forests;
  • displacement of tribal and rural communities;
  • loss of agricultural land;
  • impacts upon river ecology.
  • Narmada Bachao Andolan challenged further construction of the dam.
  • It argued that:
  • the environmental clearance granted in 1987 was conditional and incomplete;
  • necessary environmental studies were not completed before approval;
  • rehabilitation had not progressed alongside construction;
  • increasing the dam height would cause irreversible harm.
  • The Union and State Governments argued that the project had undergone prolonged expert examination and that further work was necessary to secure major public benefits.

Issue

  • Whether the environmental clearance granted to the project was legally valid.
  • Whether construction could proceed while environmental studies and rehabilitation measures remained incomplete.
  • How the Court should balance development benefits against ecological harm and displacement.

Rule

  • Sustainable development permits economic development, but requires environmental safeguards to be integrated into the project.
  • The precautionary principle is especially important where the environmental consequences are uncertain or insufficiently studied.
  • Courts reviewing technical projects examine whether:
  • the competent authorities considered relevant material;
  • statutory requirements were followed;
  • the decision was arbitrary or mala fide.
  • Environmental protection and rehabilitation must progress pari passu, meaning at the same pace, with dam construction.

Application

  • The majority distinguished between:
  • a project whose effects were unknown; and
  • a project whose impacts had been studied and for which mitigation measures had been prescribed.
  • It found that the Sardar Sarovar Project had been examined for many years by:
  • expert committees;
  • the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal;
  • State and Central authorities;
  • environmental sub-groups.
  • The 1987 environmental clearance was conditional, but the majority did not treat this as making it invalid.
  • It viewed the conditions as permitting continuing studies while construction proceeded in controlled stages.
  • The Court stressed that environmental concerns could not be separated from rehabilitation.
  • Before increasing the dam height, authorities had to ensure that families affected at that level received:
  • alternative agricultural land;
  • housing sites;
  • civic facilities;
  • resettlement in accordance with the Tribunal Award.
  • Construction was therefore not given an unrestricted approval.
  • Each further increase in height required clearance by the designated environmental and rehabilitation bodies.
  • The majority also considered the project’s social benefits.
  • It found that irrigation and drinking water for drought-prone regions were relevant components of sustainable development.
  • The Court stated that policy choices involving complex engineering and resource allocation should not ordinarily be replaced by judicial preference where the decision-making process was lawful.
  • Justice Bharucha dissented.
  • He considered the environmental clearance legally deficient because necessary studies had not been completed before approval.
  • In his view, construction should not proceed until a comprehensive environmental appraisal was completed.

Conclusion

  • By majority, the Supreme Court allowed construction to continue in stages.
  • Every increase in dam height was made subject to prior confirmation that:
  • environmental safeguards had been implemented;
  • rehabilitation had progressed pari passu;
  • affected families had received lawful resettlement.
  • The grievance-redressal authorities were required to monitor rehabilitation.
  • The judgment did not hold that development automatically prevails over the environment.
  • It upheld the project because the majority believed that an institutional system existed for staged environmental and rehabilitation compliance.
  • Use this case for: judicial review of large development projects and the requirement that environmental protection and rehabilitation proceed alongside construction.