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

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

The court held that the decision to construct the dam was a government policy based on expert assessment and long-term development needs, and absent violation of law or malafide, judicial review cannot supplant government discretion. Relief, rehabilitation, and environmental concerns have been provided for by the Tribunal's award and monitored by authorities; the court's role is limited to ensuring implementation. Environmental clearance, although initially granted when studies were incomplete, was conditional and subject to ongoing assessment and compliance; thus, it cannot be considered invalid. The Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction does not extend to changing lawfully made policy...

Parties
Petitioner: Narmada Bachao Andolan; Respondent: Union of India and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
Writ petition dismissed by majority; court upholds dam construction with directions for relief and rehabilitation monitoring.
Legal Topics
Public Interest Litigation, Judicial Review, Dam Construction Policy, Relief and Rehabilitation, Environmental Clearance, Water Disputes, Resettlement of Oustees
Constitutional Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Public Interest Litigation Judicial Review Dam Construction Policy Relief and Rehabilitation Environmental Clearance +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narmada Bachao Andolan

Petitioner

Union of India and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can interfere with government policy decisions such as construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam.
  2. 2 Whether adequate relief, rehabilitation, and environmental measures for project oustees have been taken in accordance with law.
  3. 3 Validity of the environmental clearance granted to the dam project despite studies being incomplete.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the decision to construct the dam was a government policy based on expert assessment and long-term development needs, and absent violation of law or malafide, judicial review cannot supplant government discretion. Relief, rehabilitation, and environmental concerns have been provided for by the Tribunal's award and monitored by authorities; the court's role is limited to ensuring implementation. Environmental clearance, although initially granted when studies were incomplete, was conditional and subject to ongoing assessment and compliance; thus, it cannot be considered invalid. The Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction does not extend to changing lawfully made policy...

Court Disposition

Writ petition dismissed by majority; court upholds dam construction with directions for relief and rehabilitation monitoring.

Orders

  • States must ensure completion of relief and rehabilitation for oustees at every 5 meter stage of dam height increase, certified by Grievance Redressal Authorities.
  • Work on further dam construction shall not proceed until environmental clearance is granted by an Expert Committee constituted as per 1994 Environmental Impact Assessment Notification.