1) Case Name
Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India &others
2) Citation
(2000) 10 SCC 664
3) Judges
B.N. Kirpal,
S.S.M. Quadri,
Dr. A.S. Anand (C.J.)
4) Year
2000
5) Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of India
6) Introduction
The Supreme Court’s involvement in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India reflected the tension between India’s ambitions for infrastructural advancement and its constitutional duty to protect the environment and vulnerable populations. The construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam promised enormous benefits including water security, electricity generation, and irrigation, especially for arid regions like Gujarat and Rajasthan. However, it also entailed the displacement of thousands—mostly tribal and forest-dwelling communities—and significant ecological transformation. The petition filed by the NBA questioned whether these human and environmental costs had been lawfully and ethically accounted for, making the case one of the earliest comprehensive judicial engagements with the principle of sustainable development in Indian law.
7) Background of the Case
The Sardar Sarovar Dam was part of the Narmada Valley Development Project and came into focus after the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) passed its award in 1979. This award permitted the construction of the dam but imposed conditions related to its height, water sharing among states, and the resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) of affected persons. In 1987, the Ministry of Environment and Forests granted conditional environmental clearance, requiring compliance with various environmental and social safeguards. However, by the early 1990s, concerns mounted over the lack of genuine rehabilitation for displaced families—especially in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra—as well as inadequate environmental safeguards. The Narmada Bachao Andolan, representing affected populations, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court in 1994. It alleged that the project authorities were proceeding with dam construction in defiance of statutory and constitutional protections, and in violation of the NWDT award itself. This triggered one of the most detailed judicial reviews of a development project in India’s history.
8) Issues Before the Court
The Supreme Court had to examine several interlinked legal and constitutional issues.
First, whether the environmental clearance granted in 1987 was legally valid, especially given the absence of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) at the time.
Second, whether the rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) efforts for project-affected persons—mainly tribal and rural populations—were being carried out in line with constitutional guarantees, including Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 14 (Right to Equality).
Third, the Court had to determine whether construction on the dam should be suspended or permitted to continue, and if so, under what conditions.
Finally, it was to rule on the extent to which judicial review could engage with policy decisions involving complex technical, environmental, and inter-state dimensions.
9) Arguments by the Petitioner (NBA)
The Narmada Bachao Andolan argued that the Sardar Sarovar Project was being executed in gross violation of environmental laws and the fundamental rights of affected communities. The petitioners pointed out that no detailed Environmental Impact Assessment had been carried out prior to the 1987 clearance, and that public consultations were completely absent. They alleged violations of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, as forest lands were diverted without mandatory approvals. Further, they highlighted that rehabilitation efforts were insufficient and inconsistent, especially in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, where oustees had not been allotted cultivable land or provided with adequate housing and social infrastructure. The NBA argued that these failures directly violated the rights of displaced persons under Article 21, as the loss of home, land, livelihood, and cultural identity resulted in a form of state-sanctioned deprivation. They urged the Court to halt construction until all conditions were complied with and to explore non-displacing alternatives to large dams.
10) Arguments by the Respondent (Union & States)
The Union of India, supported by the governments of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra, defended the project as an instrument of national development. They argued that the dam was essential to providing irrigation to millions of hectares, drinking water to 18 million people, and hydroelectric power to energy-starved regions. They emphasized that the environmental clearance of 1987 was not absolute but conditional, and that compliance was expected to be achieved progressively alongside project execution. The respondents cited the formation of expert monitoring bodies like the Narmada Control Authority (NCA), as well as Environment and R&R Sub-Groups, which continuously reviewed compliance. They asserted that rehabilitation in Gujarat had set a high benchmark, with land-for-land resettlement, civic amenities, and access to education and health services being provided. They contended that in matters involving inter-state coordination, complex technical assessments, and public interest, courts should exercise restraint unless there was manifest arbitrariness or illegality.
11) Judgment of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict. The majority judgment, written by Justices Kirpal and Quadri, upheld the validity of the 1987 environmental clearance, stating that it was lawful and did not require a prior EIA under the norms existing at the time. They emphasized that the clearance was conditional, and its requirements could be fulfilled progressively. The Court acknowledged Gujarat's successful rehabilitation efforts, while noting shortcomings in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. It held that construction could continue but only in phased stages, with the Narmada Control Authority certifying compliance at each step. The Court also clarified that it could not substitute its own technical views for those of expert bodies unless a fundamental right was clearly violated. In a powerful dissenting opinion, Justice Bharucha disagreed, pointing to the lack of scientific studies, particularly regarding submergence and seismic risk. He emphasized that the rehabilitation of tribals in MP and Maharashtra remained grossly inadequate, and called for a halt in construction until proper studies and compliance could be verified. He warned that allowing the project to proceed unchecked could result in irreversible damage to both people and the environment.
12) Impact & Significance of the Case
The ruling in Narmada Bachao Andolan became a foundational decision in Indian environmental and constitutional law. It crystallized the principle of sustainable development, where progress must be balanced with environmental protection and social justice. The judgment underscored the need for institutional accountability, directing that dam construction should be contingent on certified compliance with R&R and environmental benchmarks. It also clarified the role of the judiciary in policy matters, asserting that courts must ensure the protection of rights but not micromanage complex technical decisions. The case ignited national and international debate on tribal displacement, forest rights, and the ethical dimensions of development, and continues to influence the scrutiny of infrastructure projects through environmental and human rights lenses.
13) Conclusion
The Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India case remains a defining moment in India’s legal engagement with environmental and developmental governance. While the Court permitted the continuation of the Sardar Sarovar Dam, it imposed institutional safeguards and recognized the moral obligation of the State to care for displaced communities. The case stands as a symbol of both the possibilities and perils of development, and it laid down crucial judicial standards for balancing progress with the rights of people and protection of nature. It emphasized that no project, however grand, can ignore the voice of the vulnerable or bypass the laws of the land.