NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 94 · Decided: 18-10-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 18, 2000 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S.P. BHARUCHA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
c 
D 
Constitution of India-Articles 32 and 226-Public Interest litigation-
Scope of-No directions can be issued which are against legal provisions. 
Constitution of India-Articles 32 and 226-Judicial Review-Scope 
of-Courts cannot transgress into the field of policy decision-Government 
deciding to construct a dam-No violation of law or malafide--Held, Courts 
cannot sit in appeal over the policy decision of the Government. 
Constitution of India-Articles 32 and 226-laches-Project for 
construction of dam approved 25 years ago-Huge investments made-
Petitioner agitating against construction since 1986-Writ Petition filed in 
1994-Held, Petitioner cannot challenge the construction after such lapse 
of time. 
E 
Constitution of India-Article 32-Public Interest litigation-Petitioner 
challenging the construction of a dam on the ground that adequate steps 
were not taken for relief and rehabilitation of the oustees and that the 
adverse environmental effects were not taken into account-Award of Tribunal 
constituted under Inter States Water Disputes Act, 1956-Award laying down 
F the measures to, be taken for relief and rehabilitation of the oustees-Several 
authorities set up for monitoring the implementation of the Award as per the 
direction of the Tribunal-Authorities to see that measures to protect 
environment are also taken-Held, relief and rehabilitation and 
environmental concerns had been taken care of-Courts can only see if the 
Authorities are discharging their duties or not. 
G 
H 
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986-Section 3-Decision to construct 
a dam-Environmental clearance given on the basis of available studies and 
surveys which were not complete-Conditions imposed to complete 
environmental safeguards pari passu with the project work-Held, the 
environmental clearance cannot be said to be invalid-Constitution of lndia-
94 
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.0.1. 
95 
Article 32. 
A 
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986-Section 3-Polluting industries 
_ _.__ 
and projects-Precautionary Principle and Polluter-pays principle-
Applicability of-Held, would be applicable if the extent of damage likely to• 
be caused is not known-Burden of proof-Held, would be on the person 
who wants to change the status quo if the extent of damage likely to be B 
caused is not known-Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 102. 
Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956-Section 5(2) and 5(4)-Award 
of the Tribunal-Final and binding on parties-Third party cannot challenge 
the Award 
The Petitioner was agitating against the construction of the Sardar 
Sarovar Dam since 1986. In the present case the Petitioner had challenged 
the decision of the Govemment of India and the concerned State Governments 
to construct the dam in the Narmada river basin by way of the present Writ 
Petition filed in 1994. 
The idea of development of the Narmada river system was first mooted 
in 1946. The State of Gujarat granted administrative clearance Stage I of the 
project in 1961. The project was inaugurated on 5.4.1961 and preliminary 
work started. However, due to disagreement between the concerned States the 
project could not be implemented. 
The State of Gujarat filed a complaint under Section 3 of the Inter States 
Water Disputes Act, 1956 stating that water dispute had arisen between the 
State of Gujarat and the States of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra over the 
use, distribution and control of the waters of Narmada river. The Government 
of India constituted a Tribunal and referred the dispute to the Tribunal. 
While the dispute was still pending before the Tribunal, a forma.1 
agreement was entered into on 12.7.1974 between the Chief Ministers of the 
States of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan and the Advisor to 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the Governor of Gujarat sorting out several issues which the Tribunal would 
otherwise have decided. However, dispute in respect of the height of the dam G 
remained. The parties to the agreement agreed that the Tribunal would decide 
the said issue of height after considering the submission of the parties. If 
was also noted that the Narmada project should no longer be delayed in the 
best regional and national interests. 
The Tribunal declared its final award on 7.12.1979. The Tribunal H 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A examined the issues regarding allocati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.