This Case Commentary is written by Siddhi Agrawal, a Third Year Law Student of Manikchand Pahade Law College Aurangabad, Maharashtra

INTRODUCTION-

The case of Narmada Bachao Andolan is a case pretty well-known for legal confrontation between Indian states about rights in water and the ecological implications that building dams on the Narmada River has had. It argues that the environmental permits issued by the Union of India have not under an adequate analysis of ecological impact, which the given standards of the Ministry of Environment were not met, and the Narmada Control Authority was favoring some parties. This dispute is based on different sections a few of which include the Interstate Water Disputes Act, 1956, Section 4; ILO Convention No. 107; Article 21 of the Indian Constitution; and Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act.

CLAIMANT ARGUMENT-

The claimants were of the view that in 1987, the environmental permits issued to the Sardar Sarovar Project were invalid since these permits were not based upon adequate research and infringed on the environmental rights protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and ILO Convention No. 107. Independent organizations should be approached to evaluate the environmental impacts and suggest their reductions. The plaintiffs also argued that the project did not align with national interest and was violative of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as well as by international agreements through ILO Convention No. 107.

RESPONDENT ARGUMENT-

The respondent points out that the process of making decisions falls squarely within the purview of the executive branch and should not be placed for judicial review since the hallmark of the judiciary has always been its duty to protect rights. They opined that decisions made by due deliberation, judgment, and assessment of the environmental and social impacts are hard to reverse in court because of the wide input of various experts involved in the decision-making process. They argued against lowering the height of the dam, asserting that it would lower its ability to produce electricity as well as reduce operational efficiency. They appreciated the impartiality and professionalism of the National Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCA) in processing applications for further review.

JUDGMENT AND PROCEDURE-

The judgment of the Supreme Court allowed the Bombay High Court to entertain a petition filed by the appellants in April 1994, which claimed that the environmental sanction accorded to the Sardar Sarovar Dam in 1987 was flawed. This also explained the division of powers among the three branches of the state, all within the framework of the Constitution. The court stated that in the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, it is understood that there is an intrinsic need to protect the environment, and then a case has to be exhibited as to whether or not the supporters' actions would not result in environmental harm to the point wherein further developments are not allowed and risks well-defined at the very outset.

The Narmada Bachao Andolan case highlighted the need to complete the Sardar Sarovar Dam project once all clearances and guidelines from the environmental agencies have been received. The judiciary issued key directives for the construction of the dam, taking due care to make it responsible and sustainable. The dam will be constructed by the court's orders, as the NCA has allowed the construction above the mentioned height. The states must implement the tribunal decisions quickly for the rehabilitation of the affected people.

The court admitted the fact that water is scarce and thus made efforts to prevent its misuse and, at the same time, was affirmative of its significance for public interests. As long as it does not conflict with existing laws, it is up to the policy discretion of the government. The court emphasized the mainstreaming of excluded groups into the mainstream, meaning improving entry to better service delivery about water supply, electricity, and suitable rehabilitation facilities. This approach matches a socially inclusive strategy of resource allocation in equity, balancing development with environmental and social justice.

BACKGROUND-

To this end, the Sardar Sarovar Dam project on the Narmada River has always focused on India through the case filed under the Narmada Bachao Andolan. The judgment of the Supreme Court in 2000 showed that there needed to be a balance between development and nature. The court allowed the construction of the dam up to 90 meters; however, successive clearances on environmental grounds would be sought for the taller ones. In this case, the judiciary has made sure that there is strict implementation of measures for rehabilitation and enhancement, but at the same time, considering progress and the protection of nature and human rights.

The Narmada basin was allotted for water development and power generation purposes. Construction work on the dam began in 1946. In 1964, the Indian Government sanctioned a committee headed by Dr. Khosla for a dam with a Full Reservoir Level (FRL) at 500 feet or 152.44 meters level which Madhya Pradesh outright refused. The Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal was established by the Indian government in October 1969, after the Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956, to settle the dispute.

The practice of public interest litigation has expanded into those areas that at first were not the main intent. However, there is a feeling that it is becoming too frequently used for publicity motives rather than actual public interest. The courts should be cognizant of their roles so as not to overstep concerning the jurisdiction in line with administering justice within the limits of the law.

Dams are very significant in promoting water security and meeting energy needs by powering hydroelectric plants and controlling floods. Access to clean water is a constitutional right with its roots in other rights such as the right to food, a clean environment, and health.

CONCLUSION-

In this context, the Narmada Bachao Andolan case has specifically highlighted the controversial association of environmental protection with the government's authority. It has abstained from the judiciary's re-visit over policy decisions in which legal principles dominate such policies. The judgment has further also lined out the social implications, thus demanding social integration of India and providing all basic services such as drinking water, electricity, irrigation, and relief to the affected communities.

REFERENCE-

● Harsh Ram, ‘Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India’ (2023), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-14252-case-analysis-narmada-bachao-andolan-v-s-union-of-india.html#google_vignette accessed 21st October 2024.

● Aishwarya Agrawal, ‘Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India’ (2024), https://lawbhoomi.com/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors/#:~:text=India%20and%20Ors.-,Case%20Summary,its%20environmental%20and%20social%20impacts. Accessed 21st October, 2024.

B.N Kirpal, ‘Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India’,https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1938608/accessed 21st October 2024.