UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES,

PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

Project Report of The Environment Law on

“NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND

NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA”

Submitted to: Submitted By:

DR. JATINDER MAAN KANIKA
BA. LL.B(Hons.)
8TH Semester
Section-B
Roll No.-61/20
 INTRODUCTION

The Narmada River, the largest west-flowing river on the Indian peninsula, originates from
the Amarkantak plateau in the Shahdol district of Madhya Pradesh. It traverses through the states
of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and parts of Rajasthan, covering a distance of 1312
kilometers before reaching the Arabian Sea. The river meanders through lush forests, hills,
agricultural landscapes, and rocky gorges. Boasting approximately 41 tributaries, it is flanked by
the Satpura, Vindhya, and Maikal mountain ranges, ultimately merging into the Arabian Sea. The
Narmada River basin is home to 81% of villages, predominantly inhabited by tribal communities
such as Bhils, Gonds, Baigas, and others, who are primarily engaged in agriculture. The basin is
renowned for its abundant natural resources.

THE NARMADA VALLEY PROJECT

As per Indian planners, the Narmada Valley is characterized as an underdeveloped region lacking
essential irrigation facilities, with untapped mineral and natural resources, underutilized hydro-
electric power, and inadequate infrastructure. Manifestations of underdevelopment, such as low
electricity consumption, limited industrial activity, sluggish urban growth, below-average
agricultural yields, and a lack of modern medical, educational, and banking facilities, are
prominently evident.

The project's inception dates back to 1946, but the states along the river's course faced challenges
in determining resource allocation, irrigation areas, and water sharing. The project gained
momentum only after receiving approval from the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT),
marking the initiation of India's largest single river valley project. The Narmada River dispute
encapsulates three intricate challenges: resource allocation in a federation involving multiple
states, the upstream-downstream conflict in water sharing, and the clash between human
rights/environmentalist activists and predevelopment interests. In India, water development is
constitutionally under state jurisdiction, but larger rivers like the Narmada traverse multiple states,
leading to a federal role if deemed in the public interest.
CHALLENGES IN THE PROJECT- Decisions on dam construction, dimensions, and locations
are not just engineering but also political, impacting cost and benefit distribution among states.
Costs involve dam construction and damage from reservoir and canal creation, while benefits
include water for various uses, hydroelectricity, flood control, fishing, navigation, and tourism.
Short-term gains encompass construction jobs, contracts, training, and industrial spinoffs.

For interstate rivers in India, these decisions often entangle in upstream-downstream disputes. The
downstream, typically more developed, relies on a consistent water supply. However, the
upstream, historically an economic hinterland, increases water usage, jeopardizing downstream
supply. This sets the stage for a legal battle over riparian rights, with political pressure urging
governments to resolve the dispute.

Article 262 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to adjudicate interstate water disputes,
leading to the Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956. This Act allows the central government to
form a tribunal to settle river disputes, providing a legal framework for resolution. While
negotiation is preferable, disputes can be referred to a tribunal as a last resort, with their decisions
being final and beyond court jurisdiction.

The complexities extend beyond federal and upstream-downstream politics, sparking a newer
conflict between proponents and opponents of large dam projects. Proponents include politicians,
bureaucrats, and technical experts supporting increased water supply. Opponents or Project
Affected Persons (PAPs), face displacement due to dam construction. Human rights activists and
environmentalists join forces, opposing dams for ecological reasons such as land submersion,
disruption of natural river flow, waterlogging, and health hazards.

The politics of river water development in federations like India proves highly complex. Decisions
on cost and benefit distribution are challenging, and reluctance to alter decisions prevails due to
potential delays, uncertainties, and escalating costs. The addition of human rights and
environmental concerns intensifies the complexity and sensitivity. Balancing gains and losses in a
legally binding decision becomes a delicate political compromise. The Narmada case underscores
the redoubled complexity and sensitivity when human rights and environmental issues are
interwoven with resource development decisions in a federal context.
MAIN OUTLINE OF THE PROJECT- The ambitious Narmada Valley Project entails the
construction of 30 major dams, with 10 on the main river and 20 on tributaries. This colossal
undertaking comprises 5 hydel, 6 multipurpose, and 19 irrigation schemes, along with 135 medium
and up to 3,000 minor irrigation schemes. The estimated cost stands at 18,000 crores of rupees,
prompting the central and state governments to seek financial assistance from the World Bank
(IBRD). Envisaged benefits include the irrigation of nearly 50 lakh hectares of land, an installed
power capacity of 3,830 MMW, and various socio-economic advantages for the population,
including flood control, employment generation, water supply, and tourism promotion.

Despite these optimistic projections, the actual implementation faced challenges. The project
lacked meticulous planning and careful execution, leading to large-scale exploitation of natural
resources and posing a threat of submerging vast areas of forests and agricultural land. The seismic
nature of the region raised concerns about potential earthquakes and damage to the dam. Over
150,000 acres of forest land were at risk of submergence, constituting around 11% of the river
basin's forests. The subsequent migration of people added immense pressure on adjoining areas.
The NWDT established directives for the compensation and resettlement of displaced people,
emphasizing housing, education, healthcare, and transport facilities. However, challenges such as
unemployment and inadequate alternative income measures persisted, with variations in
rehabilitation efforts among states.

NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN

In 1985, activists, including Medha Patkar, visited the construction site of the Sardar Sarovar Dam.
The relocation of Adivasis, promised proper facilities, faced challenges as procedures were
incomplete. In response, protests in Manibeli village in 1992 underscored the resistance against
forced relocation, leading to Operation Manibeli, which faced defiance from the majority of the
village residents. The Narmada Andolan, one of the longest struggles against a development
project in the post-independent era, emerged as an assertion of the rights of the displaced,
demanding adequate compensation for affected communities.

• Formation of Narmada Bachao Andolan

Narmada Bachao Andolan had various groups in it. Some of the prominent groups were Gujrat
based Narmada Asargrastha Samithi (Committee of the affected people), Madhya Pradesh based
Narmada Ghati Nav Nirman Samithi (Committee for a new life in Narmada Valley) and
Maharashtra based Narmada Dharangrastha Samithi (Committee for Narmada dam-affected
people). Narmada Bachao Andolan was also supported by various other NGO’s and other famous
personalities.

NBA’s slogans include – Vikas Chahiye, Vinash Nahin! (Development wanted, not destruction)
and “Koi nahi hatega, bandh nahi Banega!” (We won’t move, the dam won’t be constructed)

• Role of World Bank

Louis Preston, the then World Bank president visited Bombay in November 1992. The World
Bank has invested 450 million dollars in the Sardar Sarovar Dam. The anti-dam movement was
rising to such an extent that pressure was too high on the World Bank. Thus, they finally decided
to conduct a separate survey on the dam regarding the economic and technical terms. But the
problem was that they forgot to analyze on the main concept that is social or environmental terms.
Then also the committee found serious flaws in the project and recommended that the bank pull
out. When Mr. Preston visited Bombay, Medha Patkar and some of her colleagues who are closely
associated with the Narmada Bachao Andolan, decided to have a meeting with Mr. Louis Preston,
but they were made disappointed. Their main issue was that the Indian Government itself was
against the adivasis as the government was funded by the World Bank itself. Therefore, these
people wanted the World Bank to withdraw its funds. Later, the people found out that Mr. Louis
Preston was engaged in attending a fashion show and he was least interested in talking to Medha
Patkar and her associates. Outside the hotel, the policemen who were in charge took advantage of
the absence of cameras and a brutal cane assault was done against the people and two of the
activists were brutally murdered.

After all the chaos, finally, the World Bank decided to withdraw from the project. A Victory Rally
was organized in Kapadia, Gujarat on March 1993 as the news of the withdrawal of the bank
reached the people. Despite all the criticism, the dam was continued to be built. The drought-prone
area of Kucch which was to be benefited from the project will receive only 2% of water; 30 years
from now. Meanwhile, excess irrigation in the Command area will cause salinity and waterlog that
will seriously affect the agriculture. Drastic deforestation led to siltation causing the lifespan of
most of the dams to be reduced to small years. The siltation rate in the Narmada River is 365 times
higher than the project was initially designed.

• MONSOONS 1993

Monsoons were creating floods in the Narmada River. Due to the flooding, police have forcefully
evicted the people who were living there. They were forced to leave in the clothes they were
wearing, and they couldn’t even take any vessels or the things that they had. Most of the people
took an oath that they will not relocate themselves even if the floods drown them. But the
government thought that the people will fly off like rats when the real floods come. But their
expectations were doomed. When the real floods came, people stood by their word and didn’t
move. But the government was not ready to accept their defeat. The policemen forcefully threw
the people out of their homes during the night. It is like the people donated their homes to the
government even though they didn’t want it. Sulpaneshwar temple was drowned in the flood. It
was the most important temple for the people living there. They still hoisted the flag over the top
parts of the temple and showed their determination and strength.

• Bombay, June 1993

The adivasis from the Narmada Valley marched in Bombay streets, claiming that the fodder,
flowers, crops, cattle, wood, and grass all belong to them not the government. The village of Kutch
is not getting any water. What will be the benefit of the project if the dam is going to give water
to Kutch in 2025 and not now? People need water for their basic amenities and day to day need
not only for future purposes. And by the end of construction of the dam, from the fishermen to
normal people will be affected to the core and who will be responsible for their loss; nobody, not
even the Indian Government. This is not only the problem of the people living in the Manibeli
village or the Narmada Valley, this is the problem of all the people who are oppressed and those
who are not given their fundamental right to life and liberty. Right to life guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution is equally applicable for all the people irrespective of their caste creed and color or
the status in the society. Medha Patkar and Deorambhai, decided to go on an indefinite hunger
strike because of unborthered behaviour of the officials. On the 14th day, the hunger strikers were
arrested, and the government promised that there will be a complete revision of the project and
thus the hunger strike ended. A month later also no comprehensive steps were taken to revise the
project and homes of 40 adivasi families were washed away. After realizing the fact that their
hunger strike went in vain, several activists challenged the government that until and unless they
bring in a revision to the plan they will drown themselves in the Narmada River on the 6th of
August and titled the challenge as “Jal Samarpan” – Sacrifice by Drowning. The government
invoked the “Official Secrets Act” restricting the media from the site. The police then launched a
hunt for Medha Patkar and others. Thousands of the activists were arrested but the key activists
avoided the police arrest.

• Manibeli, August 1993 -

Medha Patkar made the people understand that now they had to submit their facts and figures
related to the Sardar Sarovar Dam in front of the Review Committee through her motivational and
strong speeches. The villagers of Akhrani village resisted the Government’s efforts to survey the
land there suspecting that it may be a mere plan of the government to bring on evacuation. The
police were so heartless that they fired on the people who oppressed the movement of the police.

• Dhule, November 1993

They marched and protested in Dhule stating about the brutality of the police towards adivasis.
The policemen again proved hoe brutal they can become. The activists were brutally beaten up
and were called a lot of unparliamentary words. Rehamal Vasave, 16-year-old boy was killed in
the police firing.

• January 1994

The sluices of the Sardar Sarovar Dam were closed, and the government ordered that none of the
homes of the adivasis should be submerged unless and until proper resettlement is done.

• Delhi, March 1994

The activists visited the union minister for the environment, Mr. Kamal Nath. They raised the issue
that closing the sluices is not the solution for the problem faced by the people since the water in
the Narmada is still rising. Medha Patkar clearly stated that the sluices must be opened, further
construction must be stopped, and the Union Minister should appoint a committee to inquire into
the whole issue. But Mr. Kamal Nath went away from the discussion hall halfway through the
discussion. Next was the attack on the Congress and BJP party members on the Narmada Bachao
Andolan office.
 • Gujarat, March 1994

The chief minister Mr. Chimanbhai Patel passed away. He was a sole supporter of the Sardar
Sarovar Dam. During his funeral ceremony, all the other officials swore that the construction of
the dam must be completed within the planned time.

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. The Union of India

Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) 328 of 2002.

Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal (former CJI), Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice S.B. Sinha .

Date of Judgment: 15th March 2005.

Court: The Supreme Court of India.

• Writ Petition

The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), a Non-Governmental Organization which has been in the
forefront of agitation against the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam filed a writ petition before
this Court raising several issues including relief and rehabilitation. Before the Court, a grievance
was raised as regards the attitude on the part of the State of Madhya Pradesh as it tried to wriggle
out of its responsibilities to provide rehabilitation facilities to the ousters by offering them cash
compensation. A contention was further raised that since offers to ousters affected at 90 meters of
the height of the dam to be settled in the State of Madhya Pradesh had not been made, further
construction should not be permitted till one year after the resettlement of these project-affected
families (PAF) at 90 meters. The Incomparable Court considered the significance of water in
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution in this case. The debate centres on the control, utilisation and
dissemination of river water. To resolve this issue, the Government of India set up a tribunal. under
Section 4 of the Inter-State Dispute Act, of 1956 to resolve the matter. The court decided
effectively considering the height of the dam and guidelines for the state of Gujarat to continue
with development. On April 23, 1994, the Ministry of Irrigation decided to close 10 construction
projects. The petitioners asked for an independent judicial review of the entire project. Their main
objection was based on “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and ILO Convention No. 107.” They
also supported the implementation of a watershed treatment program and the necessary
rehabilitation that would take place well before the lake container was filled.

• Appellant Argument`s
1. The appellant asserted that the environmental clearance in 1987 lacked due consideration,
given the absence of pertinent studies, warranting a cessation of the Sardar Sarovar Project.
2. They contended against further submergence, advocating for a reduction in dam height to
facilitate unimpeded relief and rehabilitation efforts.
3. The appellant argued that the Sardar Sarovar Project ran counter to the national interest,
asserting a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution in conjunction with ILO
Convention No. 107.
4. They advocated for the involvement of independent agencies to assess environmental costs
and propose mitigating measures. Additionally, the appellant stressed the incomplete status
of the catchment area treatment program, insisting it should have been concluded before
initiating reservoir filling.

• Respondent Argument`s
1. The respondent contended that the decision-making process is an administrative function
and should not undergo de novo review by the courts, emphasizing the judiciary's role as a
guardian of fundamental rights.
2. They argued that when multiple perspectives exist, the government, after careful
consideration, makes decisions immune to legal challenges. The respondent highlighted
the holistic evaluation of environmental impact.
3. The respondent opposed the reduction of dam height, asserting that it would render power
generation seasonal, causing a loss in overall power production.
4. NCA's autonomy and competence were emphasized, negating the necessity for additional
independent authorities.
5. The government's profound concern for environmental aspects was underscored through
available letters and documents.

• Issues:
 1. Whether the environmental clearance granted by the Union of India lacked proper study
and consideration of environmental impact.
2. Whether the conditions set by the Ministry of Environment were not adhered to.
3. Whether the Narmada Control Authority displayed bias in awarding despite its status as an
independent body.

• Decision of the court

A three-judge Bench of this court by a judgment and order dated 18.10.2000 emphasized that for
a project as important as this one, completion must be expeditious and compliance with regulations
and guidelines must be maintained on a permissible basis. The Supreme Court has issued directives
allowing construction of the dam only up to 90 meters, and also stated cannot go above the limit
without the permission of respective authorities. The Narmada Control Authority (NCA) was
expected to issue further permissions for dam construction.

A vital reason in support of allowing consent may well be the reality that indeed after seven
decades of autonomy, not all Indian citizens have satisfactory access to water, which may be a
clear infringement of Article 21 and the Resolution of United Nations Human Rights. India's
waterways have the potential to reduce the cruel conditions within the country's arid districts,
where satisfactory precipitation is uncommon.

When making arrangement choices, the government has the tact to set up approaches and courts
ought to not audit such choices unless they struggle with existing law. The use of public interest
litigation (PIL) ought to be restricted to certain ranges and not be utilized as a weapon in open
intrigued cases.

There has to bridge between diversity in India so that the marginalized are included within the
social texture. The government ought to provide fundamental cutting-edge offices such as clean
drinking water, satisfactory power, water system administrations and recovery hardware.
nonattendance of So, any within the unfavourable circumstances or considering appearing that the
dam was hurtful to the environment, the court issued the mandate.

Development of the dam is anticipated to influence an assortment of components, including

landmarks, territories, vegetation, fauna and social hones. There's no question that this will thrust
tribal communities off the lands they have occupied for eras. Despite these potential impacts,
authorization to construct the dam was granted taking into account its positive perspectives. The
natural clearance allowed by the Prime Serve has been addressed due to the need for satisfactory
inquiry and investigation, which is said to be insulant grounded.

In a majority-rule government, government choices must reflect the view of all segments of
society. Policymaking ought to fundamentally be the duty of the government and the legal ought
to abstain from mediating unless the arrangement damages sacred arrangements.

ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE ANDOLAN

The Narmada Bachao Andolan has gained a world-wide support. They have succeeded in getting
rehabilitation for the people who were forced to relocate themselves. They were successful in
getting the World Bank out of the project in 1993. The Narmada Bachao Andolan could halt the
building of the Sardar Sarovar Dam from 1994 to 1999. The National Alliance for people’s
movement was formed.

STATUS OF NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AT PRESENT

On October 2000, the Supreme Court gave the approval for the construction of Sardar Sarovar
Dam. The court decided that the height of the dam be raised to 90 m. This height is much higher
than the 88 m which anti-dam activists demanded, but it is lower than the proposed height of 130
m. after the Supreme Court Judgement, the Gujarat Government has taken up the construction of
the dam. As the World Bank withdrew its financing in 1993, the project is now largely financed
by the state governments and market borrowings. Now the project is expected to be fully completed
by 2025.