Assignment 3 - Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India

Assignment 3 – Narmada Bachao Andolan v.
Union of India
What are the environmental issues dealt with by the Supreme Court in Narmada
Bachao Andolan vs Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 3751)?
At the beginning of the protest, the project was considered a social issue. From 1984
onwards, the environmental impact of the project was widely circulated, and people started to
view this project as an environmental issue. Around 13385 ha of forest submerged and
environmental safeguards are not effectively implemented. The catchment needs to be
properly treated to check soil erosion and siltation in the reservoir as both contribute to the
degradation of water quality of the reservoir and reduce the life span of the dam.
In 1989 the ‘Narmada Bachao Andolan(Save The Narmada)’ (NBA) was formed and it
spread into other parts of India also. NBA activists found that the dam will submerge forest
and agricultural land. Few scientists have added that the construction of large dams could
cause earthquakes. They also added that in a country like India, it is likely that the necessary
maintenance of this dam may suffer.
The NBA filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court and they raised issues
regarding the environmental deterioration caused by the construction of the Narmada dam.
Also, they argued that the environmental clearance which is granted for the construction of
the Sardar Sarovar dam was without proper studies regarding the same.
The Ministry of Environment had only granted the conditional and tentative clearance subject
to environmental studies and remedial plans for the project. So, the NBA argued that the
project can’t be allowed without doing proper studies. In October 2000, the Supreme Court
permitted the construction of the dam.
Certain features make the Narmada movement unique –

- The activists’ groups are from 3 different states and
- It was a non-violent protest and the participants have been repeatedly harassed,
beaten, and jailed.
- Narmada Bachao Andolan has been widely and sympathetically covered in the print
media.
- This protest has been promoted by many environmental groups from overseas.
Environmentalists from Japan have persuaded their government not to advance money for the
Narmada Valley Project and the environmentalists from the US have tried to convince the
World Bank to do the same.
There was an active countermovement has generated in support of the dam. Most of the
political leaders and social activists from Gujarat stood for the state’s well-off farmers who
gain most from the Narmada valley project. They organized demonstrations and press
campaigns and also portrayed the Narmada movement leaders as anti-national and anti-
development.
Environmental Justice and Environmentalism of The Poor
One of the major environmental impacts is due to the continuous irrigation the fertile of
agricultural soil degrade and salinization of the soil. The conflicts over Sardar Sarovar Dam
can be considered in two different aspects, i.e. red and green aspects- both representing social
justice and environmental sustainability respectively. The environmental impacts created by
this dam construction was quite large –
- Biodiversity loss
- Desertification & Drought
- Food insecurity due to crop damage
- Loss of landscape and aesthetic degradation
- Soil erosion,
- Floods
- Deforestation and loss of vegetation cover
- Surface water pollution
- Decreasing water quality
- Groundwater depletion
- Large-scale disturbance of hydro and geological systems
- Reduced ecological and hydrological connectivity
There is always a connection established between environmental justice and the

environmentalism of the poor. Many arguing that although all environmental conflicts are
targeted to local grievances there is a global movement for environmental justice. All the
local movements are global because they appear regularly elsewhere in the world or those
local issues find global network and connections therefore, they are operating at a global
level. While we are coming to the Sardar Sarovar dam here also people’s urge for
environmental justice would be considered as the environmentalism of the poor.
Both environmental and social justice wasn’t served in this case. The rehabilitation measures
have not been properly applied, rehabilitation of around 80% of the affected population is
incomplete and the people haven’t received proper compensation from the government also.
One of the environmental compensations that has been assured by the government was
compensatory afforestation and about 4,650 hectares are estimated for compulsory
afforestation however the project authorities have not been able to identify non-forest land for
compensatory afforestation.
Do you agree with the stand of the Supreme Court on precautionary principle in this
case? What is your view on the dissenting opinion of Justice Bharucha in this case?
Yes. The Court’s decision in Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India (NBA case),
presents the most bizarre and problematic (in) application of the principle. In the majority
judgement, the Court negated its application on the assertion that, environmental impacts of
dams were neither uncertain, nor catastrophic for the environment. The Court omitted to
consider two pivotal facts highlighted in Justice Barucha’s dissenting opinion. First, at the
time of issuing the environmental clearance in 1986, contemporaneous Notes prepared by the
two Union Ministries explicitly admitted that the impacts of the Sardar Sarovar dam on the
surrounding region were unclear. Second, even after the environmental clearance was issued,
no environmental impact assessment was carried out to ascertain such impacts. In 1993, an
independent review committee, the Morse Commission indicated that the project posed a
threat to environment and human health. However, its findings were contested.
In a case related to the Sardar Sarovar dam, the court negated the application of the
precautionary principle on the assertion that, environmental impacts of dams were neither
uncertain, nor catastrophic for the environment. Photo by Pranav mayani/Wikimedia
Commons.
Cumulatively, these facts establish one actuality beyond doubt, i.e., there existed a state of
scientific uncertainty about the environmental impacts of the dam, even at the time the
judgement was being pronounced. Therefore, contrary to the Court’s assertion, the
precautionary principle could have been applied in this case and the Court could have
suspended the project, pending a comprehensive environmental impact assessment. Had it
done so, it may have prevented the subsequent rampant environmental degradation and
human rights violations caused by the project.

Assignment 3 - Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment 3 - Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment 3 - Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment 3 – Narmada Bachao Andolan v.

Certain features make the Narmada movement unique –

There is always a connection established between environmental justice and the

You might also like