Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India - International ...

International EnvironmentalLaw Research CentreNARMADA BACHAO ANDOLANv.UNION OF INDIAJudgment of 18 October 2000Supreme Court of India, Writ petition (civil) No.319 of 1994Judgement of 18 October 2000, AIR 2000 SC 3751.CASE NO. 319 OF 1994This paper can be downloaded in PDF format from IELRC’s website athttp://www.ielrc.org/content/c0001.pdfInternational Environmental Law Research CentreInternational Environment HouseChemin de Balexert 71219 ChâtelaineGeneva, SwitzerlandE-mail: info@ielrc.org

MAJORITY JUDGEMENT[For the Minority Judgement, See page 59]32. Kirpal, J. (for himself and on behalf of Dr A.S. Anand, Chief Justice of India) (Majority view) Narmada is thefifth largest river in India and largest west-flowing river of the Indian Peninsula. Its annual flow approximates tothe combined flow of the rivers of Sutlej, Beas and Ravi. Originating from the Maikala ranges at Amarkantak inMadhya Pradesh, it flows westwards over a length of about 1,312 km, before draining into the Gulf of Cambay, 50km west of Bharuch City. The first 1,077 km stretch is in Madhya Pradesh and the next 35 km stretch forms theboundary between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Again, the next 39 km forms the boundarybetween Maharashtra and Gujarat and the last stretch of 161 km lies in Gujarat.33. The basin area of this river is about 1 lakh km². The utilisation of this river basin, however, is hardly about 4percent. Most of the water of this peninsula river goes into sea. Inspite of the huge potential, there was hardly anydevelopment of the Narmada water resources prior to independence.34. In 1946, the then Government of Central Provinces and Berar and the then Government of Bombay requestedthe Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation Commission (CWINC) to take up investigations on the NarmadaRiver system for basin wise development of the river with flood control, irrigation, power and extension ofnavigation as the objectives in view. The study commenced in 1947 and most of the sites were inspected byengineers and geologists who recommended detailed investigation for seven projects. Thereafter in 1948, theCentral Ministry of Works, Mines & Power appointed an ad-hoc committee headed by Shri A.N. Khosla, Chairman,CWINC to study the projects and to recommend the priorities. This ad-hoc committee recommended as an initialstep detailed investigations for the following projects keeping in view the availability of men, materials and resources:1) Bargi Project,2) Tawa Projects near Hoshangabad,3) Punasa Project, and4) Broach Project.35. Based on the recommendations of the aforesaid ad-hoc committee, estimates for investigations of the Bargi,Tawa, Punasa (Narmadasagar) and Broach Projects were sanctioned by the Government of India in March 1949.36. The Central Water & Power Commission carried out a study of the hydroelectric potential of the Narmadabasin in the year 1955. After the investigations were carried out by the Central Water & Power Commission, theNavagam site was finally decided upon in consultation with the erstwhile Government of Bombay for theconstruction of the dam. The Central Water & Power Commission forwarded its recommendations to the thenGovernment of Bombay. At that time the implementation was contemplated in two stages. In Stage-I, the FullReservoir Level (hereinafter referred to as ‘FRL’) was restricted to 160 ft with provision for wider foundations toenable raising of the dam to 300 ft in Stage II. A high level canal was envisaged in Stage-II. The erstwhile BombayGovernment suggested two modifications, first the FRL of the dam be raised from 300 to 320 ft in Stage-II andsecond the provision of a power house in the river bed and a power house at the head of the low level canal be alsomade. This project was then reviewed by a panel of consultants appointed by the Ministry of Irrigation and Powerwho in a report in 1960 suggested that the two stages of the Navagam dam as proposed should be combined intoone and the dam be constructed to its final FRL 320 ft in one stage only. The consultants also stated that there wasscope for extending irrigation from the high-level canal towards the Rann of Kachchh.37. With the formation of the State of Gujarat on 1 May 1960, the Narmada Project stood transferred to that state.Accordingly, the Government of Gujarat gave an administrative approval to Stage-I of the Narmada Project inFebruary 1961. The project was then inaugurated by late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru on 5 April 1961. The preliminaryworks such as approach roads & bridges, colonies, staff buildings and remaining investigations for dam foundationswere soon taken up.38. The Gujarat Government undertook surveys for the high level canal in 1961. The submergence area survey ofthe reservoir enabled assessment of the storage capability of the Navagam reservoir, if its height should be raisedbeyond FRL 320 ft. The studies indicated that a reservoir with FRL +460 ft would enable realisation of optimumbenefits from the river by utilising the untapped flow below Punasa dam and would make it possible to extendirrigation to a further area of over 20 lakh acres. Accordingly, explorations for locating a more suitable site in the1

narrower gorge portion were taken in hand and finally in November 1963, site No. 3 was found to be most suitableon the basis of the recommendations of the Geological Survey of India and also on the basis of exploration andinvestigations with regard to the foundation as well as construction materials available in the vicinity of the dam site.39. In November 1963, the Union Minister of Irrigation and Power held a meeting with the Chief Ministers ofGujarat and Madhya Pradesh at Bhopal. As a result of the discussions and exchange of views, an agreement(Bhopal Agreement) was arrived. The salient features of the said Agreement were:a) That the Navagam Dam should be built to FRL 425 by the Government of Gujarat and its entire benefitswere to be enjoyed by the State of Gujarat.b) Punasa Dam (Madhya Pradesh) should be built to FRL 850. The costs and benefits of Punasa PowerProject shall be shared in the ratio 1:2 between the Governments of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. Out ofthe power available to Madhya Pradesh half of the quantum was to be given to the State of Maharashtrafor a period of 25 years for which the State of Maharashtra was to provide a loan to the extent of onethirdthe cost of Punasa Dam. The loan to be given by the State of Maharashtra was to be returned withina period of 25 years.c) Bargi Project was to be implemented by the State of Madhya Pradesh, Bargi Dam was to be built to FRL1365 in Stage I and FRL 1390 in stage II and the Government of Gujarat were to give a total loanassistance of Rs 10 crores for the same.40. In pursuance of the Bhopal Agreement, the Government of Gujarat prepared a brief project report envisagingthe Navagam Dam FRL 425 ft and submitted the same to the Central Water and Power Commission under GujaratGovernment’s letter dated 14 February 1964. Madhya Pradesh, however did not ratify the Bhopal Agreement. Inorder to overcome the stalemate following the rejection of the Bhopal Agreement by Madhya Pradesh, a High LevelCommittee of eminent engineers headed by Dr A.N. Khosla, the then Governor of Orissa, was constituted on 5September 1964 by the Government of India. The terms of reference of this Committee were decided by the Governmentof India in consultation with the States of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat. The same read as under:i. Drawing up of a Master Plan for the optimum and integrated development of the Narmada water resources.ii.The phasing of its implementation for maximum development of the resources and other benefits.iii. The examination, in particular of Navagam and alternative projects, if any, and determining the optimumreservoir level or levels.iv.Making recommendations of any other ancillary matters.41. The Khosla Committee submitted the unanimous report to the Government of India in September 1965 andrecommended a Master Plan of the Narmada Water Development. In Chapter XI of the said Report, the KhoslaCommittee outlined its approach to the plan of Narmada development. An extract from this chapter is reproducedbelow:11.1 In the meeting from 14 to 18 December 1964 at which the State representatives were also present,the Committee laid down the following basic guidelines in drawing up the Master Plan for the optimumand integrated development of the Narmada water resources:1. National interest should have over-riding priority. The plan should, therefore, provide for maximumbenefits in respect of irrigation, power generation, flood control, navigation etc. irrespective ofstate boundaries;2. Rights and interests of the state concerned should be fully safeguarded subject to (1) above;3. Requirements of irrigation should have priority over those of power;Subject to the provision that suitable apportionment of water between irrigation and power mayhave to be considered, should it be found that with full development of irrigation, power productionis unduly affected;4. Irrigation should be extended to the maximum area within physical limits of command, irrespectiveof state boundaries, subject to availability of water; and in particular, to the arid areas along the2

international border with Pakistan both in Gujarat and Rajasthan to encourage sturdy peasants tosettle in these border areas (later events have confirmed the imperative need for this); and5. All available water should be utilised to the maximum extent possible for irrigation and powergeneration and, when no irrigation is possible, for power generation. The quantity going waste tothe sea without doing irrigation or generating power should be kept to the unavoidable minimum.42. The Master Plan recommended by the Khosla Committee envisaged 12 major projects to be taken up inMadhya Pradesh and one, viz., Navagam in Gujarat. As far as Navagam Dam is concerned, the Committeerecommended as follows:1. The terminal dam should be located at Navagam,2. The optimum FRL of the Navagam worked out to RL 500 ft,3. The FSL (Full Supply Level) of the Navagam canal at off-take should be RL 300 ft,4. The installed capacity at the river bed power station and canal power station should be 1000 MW and 240MW respectively with one stand-by unit in each power station (in other words the total installed capacity atNavagam would be 1,400 MW).The benefits of the Navagam Dam as assessed by the Khosla Committee were as follows:(i) Irrigation of 15.80 lakh hectares (39.4 lakh acres) in Gujarat and 0.4 lakh hectares (1.00 lakh acres)in Rajasthan. In addition, the Narmada waters when fed into the existing Mahi canal system wouldrelease Mahi water to be diverted on higher contours enabling additional irrigation of 1.6 to 2.0 lakhhectares (4 to 5 lakh acres) approximately in Gujarat and 3.04 lakh hectares (7.5 lakh acres) in Rajasthan.(ii) Hydro-power generation of 951 MW at 60 percent LF in the mean year of development and 511 MWon ultimate development of irrigation in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan.43. The Khosla Committee stressed an important point in favour of a high Navagam Dam, namely, additionalstorage. They emphasised that this additional storage will permit greater carryover capacity, increased powerproduction and assured optimum irrigation and flood control and would minimise the wastage of water to the sea.The Khosla Committee also observed that instead of higher Navagam Dam as proposed, if Harinphal or Jalsindhidams were raised to the same FRL as at Navagam, the submergence would continue to remain about the samebecause the cultivated and inhabited areas lie mostly above Harinphal while in the intervening 113 km (70 mile)gorge between Harinphal and Navagam, there was very little habitation or cultivated areas.44. The Khosla Committee report could not be implemented on account of disagreement among the States. On 6July 1968 the State of Gujarat made a complaint to the Government of India under Section 3 of the Inter-StateWater Disputes Act, 1956 stating that a water dispute had arisen between the State of Gujarat and the respondentStates of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra over the use, distribution and control of the waters of the inter-stateriver Narmada. The substance of the allegation was that executive action had been taken by Maharashtra andMadhya Pradesh which had prejudicially affected the State of Gujarat and its inhabitants. The State of Gujaratobjected to the proposal of the State of Madhya Pradesh to construct Maheshwar and Harinphal Dams over theriver Narmada in its lower reach and also to the agreement reached between the States of Madhya Pradesh andMaharashtra to jointly construct the Jalsindhi Dam over Narmada in its course between the two States. The mainreason for the objection was that if these projects were implemented, the same would prejudicially affect the rightsand interests of Gujarat State by compelling it to restrict the height of the dam at Navagam to FRL 210 ft or less.Reducing the height of the dam would mean the permanent detriment of irrigation and power benefits that wouldbe available to the inhabitants of Gujarat and this would also make it impossible for Gujarat to reclaim the desertarea in the Ranns of Kachchh. According to the State of Gujarat, the principal matters in disputes were as under:i. The right of the State of Gujarat to control and use the waters of the Narmada River on well-acceptedprinciples applicable to the use of waters of inter-State rivers;ii. The right of the State of Gujarat to object to the arrangement between the State of Madhya Pradesh and theState of Maharashtra for the development of Jalsindhi Dam;3

iii. The right of the State of Gujarat to raise the Navagam dam to an optimum height commensurate with theefficient use of Narmada waters including its control for providing requisite cushion for flood control; andiv. The consequential right of submergence of area in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra andareas in the Gujarat State.45. Acting under Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, the Government of India constituted aTribunal headed by the Hon’ble Mr Justice V Ramaswamy, a retired Judge of this Court. On the same day, theGovernment made a reference of the water dispute to the Tribunal. The Reference being in the following terms:In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act,1956 (33 of 1956), the Central Government hereby refers to the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal foradjudication of the water dispute regarding the inter-state river, Narmada, and the river-valley thereof,emerging from letter No. MIP-5565/C-10527-K dated 6 July 1968, from Gujarat.46. On 16 October 1969, the Government of India made another reference of certain issues raised by the State ofRajasthan to the said tribunal.47. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a Demurrer before the Tribunal stating that the constitution of the Tribunaland reference to it were ultra vires of the Act. The Tribunal framed 24 issues which included the issues relating tothe Gujarat having a right to construct a high dam with FRL 530 ft and a canal with FSL 300 ft or thereabouts.Issues 1(a), 1(b), 1(A), 2, 3, and 19 were tried as preliminary issues of law and by its decision dated 23 February1972, the said issues were decided against the respondents herein. It was held that the Notification of the CentralGovernment dated 16 October 1969 referring the matters raised by the State of Rajasthan by its complaint wasultra vires of the Act but constitution of Tribunal and making a reference of the water dispute regarding the Inter-State river Narmada was not ultra vires of the Act and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the dispute referredto it at the instance of State of Gujarat. It further held that the proposed construction of Navagam project involvingconsequent submergence of portions of territories of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh could form the subjectmatter of a water dispute within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the 1956 Act. It also held that it had the jurisdictionto give appropriate direction to Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra to take steps by way of acquisition or otherwisefor making submerged land available to Gujarat in order to enable it to execute the Navagam Project and theTribunal had the jurisdiction to give consequent directions to Gujarat and other party States regarding payment ofcompensation to Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, for giving them a share in the beneficial use of Navagam dam,and for rehabilitation of displaced persons.48. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal on the preliminary issues, the States of Madhya Pradesh andRajasthan filed appeals by special leave to this Court and obtained a stay of the proceedings before the Tribunal toa limited extent. This Court directed that the proceedings before the Tribunal should be stayed but discovery,inspection and other miscellaneous proceedings before the Tribunal may go on. The State of Rajasthan was directedto participate in these interlocutory proceedings.49. It appears that on 31.7.1972, the Chief Ministers of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Rajasthan hadentered into an agreement to compromise the matters in dispute with the assistance of the Prime Minister of India.This led to a formal agreement dated 12 July 1974 being arrived at between the Chief Ministers of MadhyaPradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan and the Advisor of the Governor of Gujarat on a number of issues which theTribunal otherwise would have had to go into. The main features of the Agreement, as far as this case is concerned,were that the quantity of water in Narmada available for 75 percent of the year was to be assessed at 28 MAF andthe Tribunal in determining the disputes referred to it was to proceed on the basis of this assessment. The netavailable quantity of water for use in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat was to be regarded as 27.25 MAF which was tobe allocated between the States. The height of the Navagam Dam was to be fixed by the Tribunal after taking intoconsideration various contentions and submissions of the parties and it was agreed that the appeals filed in thisCourt by the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan would be withdrawn. It was also noted in this agreementthat ‘development of Narmada should no longer be delayed in the best regional and national interests’.50. After the withdrawal of the appeals by the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, the Tribunal proceeded todecide the remaining issues between the parties.51. On 16 August 1978, the Tribunal declared its Award under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(4) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. Thereafter, reference numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 of 1978 were filed by the Union of4

India and the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan respectively under Section 5(3) ofthe Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. These references were heard by the Tribunal, which on 7 December1979 gave its final order. The same was published in the extraordinary Gazette by the Government of India on 12December 1979. In arriving at its final decision, the issues regarding allocation, height of dam, hydrology andother related issues came to be subjected to comprehensive and thorough examination by the Tribunal. Extensivestudies were done by the Irrigation Commission and Drought Research Unit of India and Meteorological Departmentin matters of catchment area of Narmada basin, major tributaries of Narmada basin, drainage area of Narmadabasin, climate, rainfall, variability of rainfall, arid and semi-arid zones and scarcity area of Gujarat. The perusal ofthe report shows that the Tribunal also took into consideration various technical literature before giving its Award.Award of the TribunalThe main parameters of the decision of the Tribunal were as under:a) Determination of the height of Sardar Sarovar Dam:The height of the Sardar Sarovar Dam was determined at FRL 455 ft. The Tribunal was of the view that the FRL+436 ft was required for irrigation use alone. In order to generate power throughout the year, it would be necessary toprovide all the live storage above MDDL for which an FRL of +453 ft with MDDL +362 ft would obtain gross capacityof 7.44 MAF. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that FRL of the Sardar Sarovar Dam should be +455 ft providinggross storage of 7.70 MAF. It directed the State of Gujarat to take up and complete the construction of the dam.b) Geological and seismological aspects of the dam site:The Tribunal accepted the recommendations of the Standing Committee under Central Water and Power Commissionthat there should be a seismic coefficient of 0.10 g for the dam.c) Relief and rehabilitation:The final Award contained directions regarding submergence, land acquisition and rehabilitation of the displacedpersons. The Award defined the meaning of the land, oustee and family. The Gujarat Government was to pay toMadhya Pradesh and Maharashtra all costs including compensation, charges, expenses incurred by them for andin respect of compulsory acquisition of land. Further, the Tribunal had provided for rehabilitation of oustees andcivic amenities to be provided to the oustees. The Award also provided that if the State of Gujarat was unable toresettle the oustees or the oustees were being unwilling to occupy the area offered by the States, then the ousteeswill be resettled by the home state and all expenses for this were to be borne by Gujarat. An important mandatoryprovision regarding rehabilitation was the one contained in Clause XI Sub-clause IV(6)(ii) which stated that nosubmergence of any area would take place unless the oustees were rehabilitated.d) Allocation of the Narmada waters:The Tribunal determined the utilisable quantum of water of the Narmada at Sardar Sarovar Dam site on the basisof 75 percent dependability at 28 MAF. It further ordered that out of utilisable quantum of Narmada water, theallocation between the States should be as under: Madhya Pradesh: 18.25 MAF, Gujarat: 9.00 MAF, Rajasthan:0.50 MAF and Maharashtra: 0.25 MAF.e) Period of non reviewability of certain award terms:The Award provided for the period of operation of certain clauses of the final order and decision of the Tribunal asbeing subject to review only after a period of 45 years from the date of the publication of the decision of theTribunal in the official gazette. What is important to note however is that the Tribunal’s decision contained inclause II relating to determination of 75 percent dependable flow as 28 MAF was non-reviewable. The Tribunaldecision of the determination of the utilisable quantum of Narmada water at Sardar Sarovar Dam site on the basisof 75 percent dependability at 28 MAF is not a clause which is included as a clause whose terms can be reviewedafter a period of 45 years.52. The Tribunal in its Award directed for the constitution of the inter-state administrative authority i.e. NarmadaControl Authority for the purpose of securing compliance with and implementation of the decision and directionsof the Tribunal. The Tribunal also directed for constitution of a Review Committee consisting of the Union Ministerfor Irrigation (now substituted by Union Minister for Water Resources) as its Chairperson and the Chief Ministersof Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Rajasthan as its members. The Review Committee might review the5

decisions of the Narmada Control Authority and the Sardar Sarovar Construction Advisory Committee. The SardarSarovar Construction Advisory Committee headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources as is Chairpersonwas directed to be constituted for ensuring efficient, economical and early execution of the project.53. Narmada Control Authority is a high powered committee having the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources,Government of India as its Chairperson, Secretaries in the Ministry of Power, Ministry of Environment and Forests,Ministry of Welfare, Chief Secretaries of the concerned four States as Members. In addition, thereto, there arenumber of technical persons like Chief Engineers as the members.54. Narmada Control Authority was empowered to constitute one or more sub-committees and assign to them suchof the functions and delegate such of its powers as it thought fit. Accordingly, the Narmada Control Authorityconstituted the following discipline based sub-groups:i. Resettlement and Rehabilitation Sub-group under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Welfare;ii. Rehabilitation Committee under Secretary, Ministry of Welfare to supervise the rehabilitation process byundertaking visits to R&R sites and submergence villages;iii. Environment Sub-group under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests;iv. Hydromet Sub-group under the Chairmanship of Member (Civil), Narmada Control Authority;v. Power Sub-group under the Chairmanship of Member (Power), Narmada Control Authority;vi. Narmada Main Canal Sub-committee under the chairmanship of Executive Member, Narmada ControlAuthority.55. The Award allocated the available water resources of the Narmada River between the four States. Based on thisallocation, an overall plan for their utilisation and development had been made by the States. Madhya Pradesh wasthe major sharer of the water. As per the water resources development plan for the basin it envisaged in all 30major dams, 135 medium dam projects and more than 3,000 minor dams. The major terminal dam at SardarSarovar was in Gujarat, the remaining 29 being in Madhya Pradesh. Down the main course of the river, the fourmajor dams were the Narmada Sagar (now renamed Indira Sagar), Omkareshwar and Maheshwar all in MadhyaPradesh and Sardar Sarovar in Gujarat. Rajasthan was to construct a canal in its territory to utilise its share of 0.5MAF.Relevant details of the Sardar Sarovar Dam56. As a result of the Award of the Tribunal, the Sardar Sarovar Dam and related constructions, broadly speaking,are to comprise the following:a) Main dam across the flow of the river with gates above the crest level to regulate the flow of water intothe Narmada Main Canal.b) An underground River Bed Power through which a portion of the water is diverted to generate power(1200 MW). This water joins the main channel of the Narmada River downstream of the dam.c) A saddle dam located by the side of the main reservoir through which water to the main canal systemflows.d) A Canal Head Power House located at the toe of the saddle dam, through which the water flowing to themain canal system is to be used to generate power (250 MW).e) The main canal system known as Narmada main canal 458 km long which is to carry away the watermeant for irrigation and drinking purposes to the canal systems of Gujarat and Rajasthan.Expected benefits from the project57. The benefits expected to flow from the implementation of the Sardar Sarovar Project had been estimated asfollows:Irrigation: 17.92 lakh hectare of land spread over 12 districts, 62 talukas and 3,393 villages (75 percent of whichis drought-prone areas) in Gujarat and 73,000 hectares in the arid areas of Barmer and Jalore districts in Rajasthan.6

Drinking Water facilities to 8,215 villages and 135 urban centres in Gujarat both within and outside command.These include 5,825 villages and 100 urban centres of Saurashtra and Kachchh which are outside the command.In addition, 881 villages affected due to high contents of fluoride will get potable water.Power Generation: 1,450 Megawatt.Annual Employment Potential:7 lakh man-years during construction6 lakh man-years in post construction.Protection against advancement of little Rann of Kachchh and Rajasthan desert.Flood Protection to riverine reaches measuring 30,000 ha, 210 villages including Bharuch city and 7.5 lakhpopulation.Benefits to:a) Dhumkhal Sloth Bear Sanctuary,b) Wild Ass Sanctuary in Little Rann of Kachchh,c) Black Buck Sanctuary at Velavadar,d) Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary in Kachchh,e) Nal Sarovar Bird Sanctuary.Development of fisheries: Deepening of all village tanks of command which will increase their capacities, conservewater, will recharge ground water, save acquisition of costly lands for getting earth required for constructing canalbanks and will reduce health hazard.Facilities of sophisticated communication system in the entire command.Increase in additional annual production on account of(Rs in crores)Agricultural Production 900Domestic water supply 100Power generation 440Total 1,400Post Award clearances58. In order to meet the financial obligations, consultations had started in 1978 with the World Bank for obtaininga loan. The World Bank sent its reconnaissance mission to visit the project site and carried out the necessaryinspection. In May 1985, the Narmada Dam and Power Project and Narmada Water Delivery and Drainage Projectwere sanctioned by the World Bank under International Development Agency, credit No. 1552. Agreement in thisrespect was signed with the Bank on 10.5.1985 and credit was to be made available from 6 January 1986.59. With regard to the giving environmental clearance, a lot of discussion took place at different levels betweenthe Ministry of Water Resources and the Ministry of Environment. Ultimately on 24 June 1987 the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests, Government of India accorded clearance subject to certain conditions. The said OfficeMemorandum containing the environmental clearance reads as follows:1. The Narmada Sagar Project, Madhya Pradesh and Sardar Sarovar Project, Gujarat have been referred to thisdepartment for environment clearance.7

2. On the basis of examination of details on these projects by the environmental appraisal committee for rivervalley projects and discussions with the central and state authorities the following details were sought from theproject authorities:i. Rehabilitation master plan;ii.iii.iv.Phased catchment area treatment scheme;Compensatory afforestation plan;Command area development;v. Survey of flora and fauna;vi.Carrying capacity of surrounding area;vii. Seismicity; andviii. Health aspects.3. Field Surveys are yet to be completed. The first set of information has been made available and complete detailshave been assured to be furnished by 1989.4. The NCA has been expanded and its terms of reference have been amplified to ensure that environmentalsafeguard measures are planned and implemented to depth and in its pace of implementation pari passu with theprogress of work on the project.5. After taking into account all relevant facts, the Narmada Sagar Project, Madhya Pradesh and Sardar SarovarProject, Gujarat are hereby accorded environmental clearance subject to the following conditions:i. The Narmada Control Authority (NCA) will ensure that environmental safeguard measures are plannedand implemented pari passu with progress of work on projects.ii. The detailed surveys/studies assured will be carried out as per the schedule proposed and details madeavailable to the department for assessment.iii. The catchment area treatment programme and the rehabilitation plans be so drawn as to be completedahead of reservoir filling.iv. The department should be kept informed of progress on various works periodically.6. Approval under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of forest land will be obtained separately. Nowork would be initiated on forest area prior to this approval.7. Approval from environmental and forestry angles for any other irrigation, power or development projects in theNarmada Basin should be obtained separately.60. In November 1987 for monitoring and implementation of various environmental activities effectively, anindependent machinery of Environment Sub-group was created by Narmada Control Authority. This Sub-groupwas appointed with a view to ensure that the environmental safeguards were properly planned and implemented.This Sub-group is headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India,as its Chairperson and various other independent experts in various fields relating to environment as itsmembers.61. After the clearance was given by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Planning Commission, on 5October 1988, approved investment for an estimated cost of Rs 6,406 crores with the direction to comply with theconditions laid down in the environment clearance accorded on 24 June 1987.62. According to the State of Gujarat and Union of India, the studies as required to be done by the O.M. dated 24June 1987, whereby environmental clearance was accorded, have been undertaken and the requisite work carriedout. The construction of the dam had commenced in 1987.63. In November 1990, one Dr B.D. Sharma wrote a letter to this Court for setting up of National Commission forScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes including proper rehabilitation of oustees of Sardar Sarovar Dam. This8

letter was entertained and treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution being Writ Petition No.1201 of 1990.64. On 20 September 1991, this Court in the said Writ Petition bearing No. 1201 of 1990 gave a direction toconstitute the Committee headed by Secretary (Welfare) to monitor the rehabilitation aspects of Sardar SarovarProject.65. The Narmada Bachao Andolan, the petitioner herein, had been in the forefront of agitation against theconstruction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam. Apparently because of this, the Government of India, Ministry of WaterResources vide Office Memorandum dated 3 August 1993 constituted a Five Member Group to be headed by DrJayant Patil, Member, Planning Commission and Dr Vasant Gowarikar, Mr Ramaswmy R. Iyer, Mr L.C. Jain andDr V.C. Kulandaiswamy as its members to continue discussions with the Narmada Bachao Andolan on issuesrelating to the Sardar Sarovar Project. Three months time was given to this group to submit its report.66. During this time, the construction of the dam continued and on 22 February 1994 the Ministry of WaterResources conveyed its decision regarding closure of the construction sluices. This decision was given effect toand on 23 February 1994 closure of ten construction sluices was effected.67. In April 1994 the petitioner filed the present writ petition inter alia praying that the Union of India and otherrespondents should be restrained from proceeding with the construction of the dam and they should be ordered toopen the aforesaid sluices. It appears that the Gujarat High Court had passed an order staying the publication ofthe report of the Five Member Group established by the Ministry of Water Resources. On 15 November 1994, thisCourt called for the report of the Five Member Group and the Government of India was also directed to give itsresponse to the said report.68. By order dated 13 December 1994, this Court directed that the report of the Five Member Group be madepublic and responses to the same were required to be filed by the States and the report was to be considered by theNarmada Control Authority. This Report was discussed by the Narmada Control Authority on 2 January 1995wherein disagreement was expressed by the State of Madhya Pradesh on the issues of height and hydrology.Separate responses were filed in this Court to the said Five Member Group Report by the Government of India andthe Governments of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh.69. On 24 January 1995, orders were issued by this Court to the Five Member Group for submitting detailedfurther report on the issues of:a) Heightb) Hydrologyc) Resettlement and rehabilitation and environmental matters.Dr Patil who had headed the Five Member Group expressed his unwillingness to continue on the ground of illhealthand on 9 February 1985, this Court directed the remaining four members to submit their report on theaforesaid issues.70. On 17 April 1985 the Four Member Group submitted its report. The said report was not unanimous, unlike theprevious one, and the members were equally divided. With regard to hydrology, Professor V.C. Kulandaiswamyand Dr Vasant Gowariker were for adoption of 75 percent dependable flow of 27 MAF for the design purpose, onthe basis of which the Tribunal’s Award had proceeded. On the other hand, Shri Ramaswamy Iyer and Shri L.C.Jain were of the opinion that for planning purposes, it would be appropriate to opt for the estimate of 23 MAF.With regard to the question relating to the height of the dam, the views of Dr Gowariker were that Tribunal haddecided FRL 455 ft after going into exhaustive details including social, financial and technical aspects of theproject and that it was not practicable at the stage when an expenditure or Rs 4,000 crores had been incurred andan additional contract amounting to Rs 2,000 crores entered into and the various parameters and features of theproject having been designed with respect to FRL 455 ft that there should be a reduction of the height of the dam.The other three members proceeded to answer this question by first observing as follows:We must now draw conclusions from the foregoing analysis, but a preliminary point needs to be made.The SSP is now in an advanced stage of construction, with the central portion of the dam already raisedto 80 m.; the canal constructed upto a length of 140 kms; and most of the equipment for various components9

of the project ordered and some of it already wholly or partly manufactured. An expenditureof over Rs 3,800 crores is said to have been already incurred on the project; significantsocial costs have also been incurred in terms of displacement and rehabilitation. The benefitsfor which these costs have been and are being incurred have not materialised yet. In thatsituation, any one with a concern for keeping project costs under check and for ensuring theearly commencement of benefits would generally like to accelerate rather than retard thecompletion of the project as planned. If any suggestion for major changes in the features ofthe project at this juncture is to be entertained at all, there will have to be the most compellingreasons for doing so.71. It then addressed itself to the question whether there were any compelling reasons. The answer,they felt, depended upon the view they took on the displacement and rehabilitation problem. The twoviews, which it examined, were, firstly whether the problem of displacement and rehabilitation wasmanageable and, if it was, then there would be no case of reduction in the height. On the other hand,if relief and rehabilitation was beset with serious and persistent problems then they might be led to theconclusion that there should be an examination of the possibility of reducing submergence anddisplacement to a more manageable size. These three Members then considered the question of themagnitude of the relief and rehabilitation problem. After taking into consideration the views of theStates of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, the three Members observed as follows:We find that the Government of India’s idea of phased construction outlined earlier offers apractical solution; it does not prevent the FRL from being raised to 455’ in due course if thenecessary conditions are satisfied; and it enables the Government of Madhya Pradesh to takestock of the position at 436’ and call a halt if necessary. We would, however, reiterate thepresumption expressed in paragraph 3.9.2 above namely that no delinking of constructionfrom R&R is intended and that by ‘phased construction’ the Government of India do notmean merely tiered construction which facilitates controlled submergence in phases. Werecommend phased construction in a literal sense, that is to say, that at each phase it must beensured that the condition of advance completion of R&R has been fulfilled before proceedingto the next phase (i.e. the installation of the next tier of gates). This would apply even to theinstallation of first tier. ‘Judicious operation of the gates’ (while necessary) cannot be asubstitute for the aforesaid condition.The possibility of further construction when the FRL 436 ft was reached or a stoppage at that stagewas left open by the Members. With regard to the environment it observed that this subject had beenby and large covered in the first FMG report.Rival contentions72. On behalf of the petitioners, the arguments of Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel, weredivided into four different heads, namely, general issues, issues regarding environment, issues regardingrelief and rehabilitation and issues regarding review of Tribunal’s Award. The petitioners have soughtto contend that it is necessary for some independent judicial authority to review the entire project,examine the current best estimates of all costs (social, environmental, financial), benefits and alternativesin order to determine whether the project is required in its present form in the national interest orwhether it needs to be restructured/modified. It is further the case of the petitioners that no workshould proceed till environment impact assessment has been fully done and its implications for theprojects viability being assessed in a transparent and participatory manner. This can best be done, it issubmitted, as a part of the comprehensive review of the project.73. While strongly championing the cause of environment and of the tribals who are to be ousted as aresult of submergence, it was submitted that the environmental clearance which was granted in 1987was without any or proper application of mind as complete studies in that behalf were not availableand till this is done the project should not be allowed to proceed further. With regard to relief andrehabilitation a number of contentions were raised with a view to persuade this Court that furthersubmergence should not take place and the height of the dam, if at all it is to be allowed to be constructed,should be considerably reduced as it is not possible to have satisfactory relief and rehabilitation of the10

oustees as per the Tribunal’s Award as a result of which their fundamental rights under Article 21 would beviolated.74. While the State of Madhya Pradesh has partly supported the petitioners in as much as it has also pleaded forreduction in the height of the dam so as to reduce the extent of submergence and the consequent displacement, theother States and the Union of India have refuted the contentions of the petitioners and of the State of MadhyaPradesh. While accepting that initially the relief and rehabilitation measures had lagged behind but now adequatesteps have been taken to ensure proper implementation of relief and rehabilitation at least as per the Award. Therespondents have, while refuting other allegations, also questioned the bona fides of the petitioners in filing thispetition. It is contended that the cause of the tribals and environment is being taken up by the petitioners not witha view to benefit the tribals but the real reason for filing this petition is to see that a high dam is not erected per se.It was also submitted that at this stage this Court should not adjudicate on the various issues raised specially thosewhich have been decided by the Tribunal’s Award.75. We first propose to deal with some legal issues before considering the various submissions made by ShriShanti Bhushan regarding environment, relief and rehabilitation, alleged violation of rights of the tribals and theneed for review of the project.Laches76. As far as the petitioner is concerned, it is an anti-dam organisation and is opposed to the construction of thehigh dam. It has been in existence since 1986 but has chosen to challenge the clearance given in 1987 by filing awrit petition in 1994. It has sought to contend that there was lack of study available regarding the environmentalaspects and also because of the seismicity, the clearance should not have been granted. The rehabilitation packagesare dissimilar and there has been no independent study or survey done before decision to undertake the projectwas taken and construction started.77. The project, in principle, was cleared more than 25 years ago when the foundation stone was laid by the latePandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. Thereafter, there was an agreement of the four Chief Ministers in 1974, namely theChief Ministers of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan for the project to be undertaken. Thendispute arose with regard to the height of the dam which was settled with the award of the Tribunal being given in1978. For a number of years thereafter, final clearance was still not given. In the meantime some environmentalstudies were conducted. The final clearance was not given because of the environmental concern which is quiteevident. Even though complete data with regard to the environment was not available, the Government did in1987 finally given environmental clearance. It is thereafter that the construction of the dam was undertaken andhundreds of crores have been invested before the petitioner chose to file a writ petition in 1994 challenging thedecision to construct the dam and the clearance as was given. In our opinion, the petitioner which had beenagitating against the dam since 1986 is guilty of laches in not approaching the Court at an earlier point of time.78. When such projects are undertaken and hundreds of crores of public money is spent, individual or organisationsin the garb of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cannot be permitted to challenge the policy decision taken after alapse of time. It is against the national interest and contrary to the established principles of law that decisions toundertake developmental projects are permitted to be challenged after a number of years during which periodpublic money has been spent in the execution of the project.79. The petitioner has been agitating against the construction of the dam since 1986, before environmental clearancewas given and construction started. It has, over the years, chosen different paths to oppose the dam. At its instancea Five Member Group was constituted, but its report could not result in the stoppage of construction pari passuwith relief and rehabilitation measures. Having failed in its attempt to stall the project the petitioner has resortedto court proceedings by filing this writ petition long after the environmental clearance was given and constructionstarted. The pleas relating to height of the dam and the extent of submergence, environment studies and clearance,hydrology, seismicity and other issues, except implementation of relief and rehabilitation, cannot be permitted tobe raised at this belated stage.80. This Court has entertained this petition with a view to satisfy itself that there is proper implementation of therelief and rehabilitation measures at least to the extent they have been ordered by the Tribunal’s Award. In short itwas only the concern of this Court for the protection of the fundamental rights of the oustees under Article 21 ofthe Constitution of India which led to the entertaining of this petition. It is the Relief and Rehabilitation measures11

that this Court is really concerned with and the petition in regard to the other issues raised is highly belated.Though it is, therefore, not necessary to do so, we however presently propose to deal with some of the other issuesraised.Award binding on the states81. It has been the effort on the part of the petitioners to persuade this Court to decide that in view of the difficultiesin effectively implementing the Award with regard to relief and rehabilitation and because of the alleged adverseimpact of the construction of the dam will have on the environment, further construction of the dam should not bepermitted. The petitioners support the contention on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh to the effect that theheight of the dam should be reduced in order to decrease the number of oustees. In this case, the petitioners alsosubmit that with regard to hydrology, the adoption of the figure of 27 MAF is not correct and the correct figure is23 MAF and in view thereof the height of the dam need not be 455 ft.82. The Tribunal in this Award has decided a number of issues which have been summarised hereinabove. Thequestion which arises is as to whether it is open to the petitioners to directly or indirectly challenge the correctnessof the said decision. Briefly stated the Tribunal had in no uncertain terms come to the conclusion that the height ofthe dam should be 455 ft. It had rejected the contention of the State of Madhya Pradesh for fixing the height at alower level. At the same time in arriving at this figure, it had considered the relief and rehabilitation problems andhad issued directions in respect thereof. Any issue which has been decided by the Tribunal would, in law, bebinding on the respective states. That this is so has been recently decided by a Constitution Bench of the Court inThe State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2000 (3) SCALE 505. That was a case relating toa water dispute regarding inter-state river Krishna between the three riparian States and in respect of which theTribunal constituted under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 had given an Award. Dealing with the Article262 and the scheme of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, this Court at page 572 observed as follows:The Inter-State Water Disputes Act having been framed by the Parliament under Article 262 of theConstitution is a complete Act by itself and the nature and character of a decision made thereunder hasto be understood in the light of the provisions of the very Act itself. A dispute or difference between twoor more state governments having arisen which is a water dispute under Section 2(C) of the Act andcomplaint to that effect being made to the Union Government under Section 3 of the said Act, theCentral Government constitutes a water disputes tribunal for the adjudication of the dispute in question,once it forms the opinion that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiations. The Tribunal thus constituted,is required to investigate the matters referred to it and then forward to the Central Government a reportsetting out the facts as found by him and giving its decision on it as provided under sub-Section (2) ofSection 5 of the Act. On consideration of such decision of the Tribunal, if the Central Government orany state government is of the opinion that the decision in question requires explanation or that guidanceis needed upon any point not originally referred to the Tribunal, then within three months from the dateof the decision, reference can be made to the Tribunal for further consideration and the said Tribunalthen forwards to the Central Government a further report giving such explanation or guidance as itdeems fit. Thereby the original decision of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated in the furtherdecision as provided under Section 5(3) of the Act. Under Section 6 of the Act the Central Governmentis duty bound to publish the decision of the Tribunal in the Official Gazette whereafter the said decisionbecomes final and binding on the parties to the dispute and has to be given effect to, by them. Thelanguage of the provisions of Section 6 is clear and unambiguous and unequivocally indicates that it isonly the decision of the Tribunal which is required to be published in the Official Gazette and on suchpublication that decision becomes final and binding on the parties.Once the Award is binding on the States, it will not be open to a third party like the petitioners to challenge thecorrectness thereof. In terms of the Award, the State of Gujarat has a right to construct a dam upto the height of 455ft and, at the same time, the oustees have a right to demand relief and resettlement as directed in the Award. We,therefore, do not propose to deal with any contention which, in fact, seems to challenge the correctness of an issuedecided by the Tribunal.12

General issues relating to displacement of tribals and alleged violation of the rights under Article 21 of theConstitutionThe submission of Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners was that the forcible displacementof tribals and other marginal farmers from their land and other sources of livelihood for a project which was not inthe national or public interest was a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution ofIndia read with ILO Convention 107 to which India is a signatory. Elaborating this contention, it was submittedthat this Court had held in a large number of cases that international treaties and covenants could be read into thedomestic law of the country and could be used by the courts to elucidate the interpretation of fundamental rightsguaranteed by the Constitution. Reliance in support of this contention was placed on Gramaphone Co. of IndiaLtd. v. B.B.Pandey, 1984 (2) SCC 534, PUCL v. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCC 433 and CERC v. Union of India,1995 (3) SCC 42. In this connection, our attention was drawn to the ILO Convention 107 which stipulated thattribal populations shall not be removed from their lands without their free consent from their habitual territoriesexcept in accordance with national laws and regulations or reasons relating to national security or in the interest ofnational economic development. It was further stated that the said Convention provided that in such cases whereremoval of this population is necessary as an exceptional measure, they shall be provided with lands of quality atleast equal to that of lands previously occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present needs and futuredevelopment. Shri Shanti Bhushan further contended that while Sardar Sarovar Project will displace and have animpact on thousands of tribal families it had not been proven that this displacement was required as an exceptionalmeasure. He further submitted that given the seriously flawed assumptions of the project and the serious problemswith the rehabilitation and environmental mitigation, it could not said that the project was in the national interest.It was also submitted that the question arose whether the Sardar Sarovar Project could be said to be in the nationaland public interest in view of its current best estimates of cost, benefits and evaluation of alternatives and specificallyin view of the large displacement of tribals and other marginal farmers involved in the project. Elaborating thiscontention, it was contended that serious doubts had been raised about the benefits of the project – the veryrationale which was sought to justify the huge displacement and the massive environmental impacts etc. It wascontended on behalf of the petitioners that a project which was sought to be justified on the grounds of providinga permanent solution to water problems of the drought-prone areas of Gujarat would touch only the fringes ofthese areas, namely Saurashtra and Kachchh and even this water, which was allocated on paper, would not reallyaccrue due to host of reasons. It was contended that inspite of concentrating on small-scale decentralised measureswhich were undertaken on a large scale could address the water problem of these drought-prone areas. Hugeportions of the State resources were being diverted to the Sardar Sarovar Project and as a result the small projectswere ignored and the water problem in these areas persists. It was submitted that the Sardar Sarovar Project couldbe restructured to minimise displacement.83. Refuting the aforesaid arguments, it has been submitted on behalf of the Union of India and the State ofGujarat that the petitioners have given a highly exaggerated picture of the submergence and other impacts of thisproject. It was also submitted that the petitioner’s assertion that there was large-scale relocation and uprooting oftribals was not factually correct. According to respondents, the project would affect only 245 villages in Gujarat,Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh due to pondage and backwater effect corresponding to 1 in 100 year flood. Thestate-wise break up of affected villages and the number of project affected families (PAFs) shows that only fourvillages would be fully affected (three in Gujarat and one in Madhya Pradesh) and 241 would be partially affected(16 in Gujarat, 33 in Maharashtra and 192 in Madhya Pradesh). The total project affected families who would beaffected were 40,827. The extent of the submergence was minimum in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The pictureof this submergence as per the Government of Madhya Pradesh Action Plan of 1993 is as follows:Abadi will be fully submerged in 39 villages and partially in 116 villages, agricultural land will beaffected upto 10 percent in 82 villages, upto 26 percent in 32 villages, 26 to 50 percent in 30 villages, 51to 75 percent in 14 villages, 76 to 90 percent in 4 villages and 100 percent in only 1 village. In 21villages, only abadi will be affected and Government land only in 9 villages. Thus, in most of thevillages, submergence is only partial.The submergence area of the SSP can be divided into two areas:i) Fully tribal, hilly area covering the initial reach of about 105 villages with mainly subsistence economy. Itincludes 33 villages of Maharashtra, 19 of Gujarat and about 53 of Madhya Pradesh.(ii) Mixed population area in the plains of Nimad, with a well developed economy and connected to the mainstream.This area includes about 140 villages in Madhya Pradesh.13

These two areas have quite different topographic and habitation features which result in totally different types ofsubmergence impacts. The state of the hilly area to be affected by its submergence and where most of the tribalpopulation exists is described by the Government of Madhya Pradesh Action Plan, 1993 as follows:The Narmada flows in hilly gorge from the origin to the Arabian Sea. The undulating hilly terrain in thelower submergence area of Sardar Sarovar Project exhibit naked hills and depleted forests. Even smallforest animals are rarely seen because of lack of forest cover and water. The oft quoted symbiotic livingwith forests is a misnomer in this area because the depleted forests have nothing to offer except fuelwood. Soil is very poor mostly disintegrated, granite and irrigation is almost nil due to undulating andhilly land. Anybody visiting this area finds the people desperately sowing even in hills with steep gradient.Only one rain fed crop of mostly maize is sown and so there is no surplus economy.PAPs inhabiting these interior areas find generous rehabilitation and resettlement packages as a meansto assimilate in the mainstream in the valley.84. In 193 villages of Madhya Pradesh to be affected by the project, a very high proportion of the houses would beaffected whereas the land submergence was only 14.1 percent. The reason for this is that the river bed is a deepgorge for about 116 km upstream of the dam and as a result the reservoir will be long (214 km), narrow (averagewidth of 1.77 km) and deep. The result of this is that as one goes further upstream, the houses on the river banksare largely affected while agricultural land which is at a distance from the river banks is spared. A majority of33,014 families of Madhya Pradesh (which would include 15,018 major sons) would lose only their houses andnot agricultural lands would be required to be resettled in Madhya Pradesh by constructing new houses in the newabadi. According to the Award, agricultural land was to be allotted only if the project affected families lost 25percent or more of agricultural land and on this basis as per the Government of Madhya Pradesh, only 830 projectaffected families of Madhya Pradesh were required to be allotted agricultural land in Madhya Pradesh.85. According to the Government of Gujarat the tribals constituted bulk of project affected families who would beaffected by the dam in Gujarat and Maharashtra, namely, 97 percent and 100 percent respectively. Out of theoustees of project affected families of Madhya Pradesh, tribals constituted only 30 percent while 70 percent werenon-tribals. The total number of tribal project affected families were 17,725 out of these, 9,546 were alreadyresettled. It was further the case of the respondents that in Madhya Pradesh the agricultural land of the tribalvillages was affected on an average to the extent of 28 percent whereas in the upper reaches, i.e. Nimad where theagriculture was advanced, the extent of submergence, on an average, was only 8.5 percent. The surveys conductedby HMS Gaur University (Sagar), the Monitoring and Evaluation Agency set up by the Government of MadhyaPradesh, reveal that the major resistance to relocation was from the richer, non-tribal families of Nimad whofeared shortage of agriculture labour if the landless labourers from the areas accepted resettlement. In the biannualreport, 1996 of HMS Gaur University (Sagar), it was observed as follows:The pre-resettlement study of submerging village has revealed many startling realities. Anti-damprotagonists presents a picture that tribals and backward people are the worst sufferers of this kind ofdevelopment project. This statement is at least not true in case of the people of these five affectedvillages. Though, these villages comprise a significant population of tribals and people of weaker sections,but majority of them will not be a victim of displacement. Instead, they will gain from shifting. Thepresent policy of compensation is most beneficial for the lot of weaker section. These people are livingeither as labourers or marginal farmers. The status of oustee will make them the owner of two hectaresof land and a house. In fact, it is the land-owning class which is opposing the construction of dam byplaying the card of tribals and weaker sections. The land-owners are presently enjoying the benefit ofcheap labour in this part of the region. Availability of cheap labour is boon for agricultural activities.This makes them to get higher return with less inputs.It is apparent that the tribal population affected by the submergence would have to move but the rehabilitationpackage was such that the living conditions would be much better than what it was before there. Further morethough 140 villages in Madhya Pradesh would be affected in the plains of Nimad, only 8.5 percent of the agriculturalland of these villages shall come under submergence due to SSP and as such the said project shall have only amarginal impact on the agricultural productivity of the area.86. While accepting the legal proposition that international treaties and covenants can be read into the domesticlaws of the country the submission of the respondents was that Article 12 of the ILO Convention No. 107 stipulates14

that ‘[t]he populations concerned shall not be removed without their free consent from their habitual territoriesexcept in accordance with national laws and regulations for reasons relating to national security, or in the interestof national economic development or of the health of the said populations’.87. The said Article clearly suggested that when the removal of the tribal population is necessary as an exceptionalmeasure, they shall be provided with land of quality at least equal to that of the land previously occupied by themand they shall be fully compensated for any resulting loss or injury. The rehabilitation package contained in theAward of the Tribunal as improved further by the State of Gujarat and the other States prime facie shows that theland required to be allotted to the tribals is likely to be equal, if not better, than what they had owned.88. The allegation that the said project was not in the national or public interest is not correct seeing the need ofwater for burgeoning population which is most critical and important. The population of India, which is now onebillion, is expected to reach a figure between 1.5 billion and 1.8 billion in the year 2050, would necessitate theneed of 2,788 billion cubic meter of water annually in India to be above water stress zone and 1,650 billion cubicmeter to avoid being water-scarce country. The main source of water in India is rainfall which occurs in about 4months in a year and the temporal distribution of rainfall is so uneven that the annual averages have very littlesignificance for all practical purposes. According to the Union of India, one third of the country is always underthreat of drought not necessarily due to deficient rainfall but many times due to its uneven occurrence. To feed theincreasing population, more food grain is required and effort has to be made to provide safe drinking water, which,at present, is a distant reality for most of the population specially in the rural areas. Keeping in view the need toaugment water supply, it is necessary that water storage capacities have to be increased adequately to ward off thedifficulties in the event of monsoon failure as well as to meet the demand during dry season. It is estimated that bythe year 2050 the country needs to create storage of at least 600 billion cubic metre against the existing storage of174 billion cubic metre.89. Dams play a vital role in providing irrigation for food security, domestic and industrial water supply, hydroelectricpower and keeping flood waters back. On full development, the Narmada has a potential of irrigating over 6million hectares of land and generating 3,000 MW of power. The present stage of development is very low withonly 3 to 4 MAF of water being used by the party states for irrigation and drinking water against 28 MAF availabilityof water at 75 percent dependability as fixed by NWDT and about 100 MW power developed. 85 percent of thewater is estimated as flowing waste to sea. The project will provide safe and clean drinking water to 8,215 villagesand 135 towns in Gujarat and 131 villages in desert areas of Jalore district of Rajasthan, though against these only241 villages are getting submerged partially and 4 villages fully due to the project.90. The cost and benefit of the project were examined by the World Bank in 1990 and the following passagespeaks for itself:The argument in favour of the Sardar Sarovar Project is that the benefits are so large that they substantiallyoutweigh the costs of the immediate human and environmental disruption. Without the dam, the longterm costs for people would be much greater and lack of an income source for future generations wouldput increasing pressure on the environment. If the waters of the Narmada River continue to flow to thesea unused there appears to be no alternative to escalating human deprivation, particularly in the dryareas of Gujarat. The project has the potential to feed as many as 20 million people, provide domesticand industrial water to about 30 million, employ about 1 million, and provide valuable peak electricpower in an area with high unmet power demand (farm pumps often get only a few hours power perday). In addition, recent research shows substantial economic ‘multiplier’ effects (investment andemployment triggered by development) from irrigation development. Set against the futures of about70,000 project affected people, even without the multiplier effect, the ratio of beneficiaries to affectedpersons is well over 100:1.There is merit in the contention of the respondents that there would be a positive impact on preservation ofecology as a result from the project. The SSP would be making positive contribution for preservation of environmentin several ways. The project, by taking water to drought-prone and arid parts of Gujarat and Rajasthan, wouldeffectively arrest ecological degradation which was returning to make these areas inhabitable due to salinityingress, advancement of desert, ground water depletion, fluoride and nitrite affected water and vanishing greencover. The ecology of water scarcity areas is under stress and transfer of Narmada water to these areas will lead tosustainable agriculture and spread of green cover. There will also be improvement of fodder availability which15

will reduce pressure on biodiversity and vegetation. The SSP by generating clean eco-friendly hydropower willsave the air pollution which would otherwise take place by thermal generation power of similar capacity.91. The displacement of the tribals and other persons would not per se result in the violation of their fundamentalor other rights. The effect is to see that on their rehabilitation at new locations they are better off than what theywere. At the rehabilitation sites they will have more and better amenities than which they enjoyed intheir tribal hamlets. The gradual assimilation in the mainstream of the society will lead to betterment andprogress.Environmental Issues92. The four issues raised under this head by Shri Shanti Bhushan are as under:1) Whether the execution of a large project, having diverse and far reaching environmental impact, withoutthe proper study and understanding of its environmental impact and without proper planning and mitigativemeasures is a violation of fundamental rights of the affected people guaranteed under Article 21 of theConstitution of India?2) Whether the diverse environmental impacts of the Sardar Sarovar Project have been properly studied andunderstood?3) Whether any independent authority has examined the environmental costs and mitigative measures to beundertaken in order to decide whether the environmental costs are acceptable and mitigative measurespractical?4) Whether the environmental conditions imposed by the Ministry of Environment have been violated and ifso, what is the legal effect of the violations?93. It was submitted by Shri Shanti Bhushan that a large project having diverse and far reaching environmentalimpacts in the concerned States would require a proper study and understanding of the environmental impacts.He contended that the study and planning with regard to environmental impacts must precede construction.According to Shri Shanti Bhushan, when the environmental clearance was given in 1987, proper study andanalysis of the environmental impacts and mitigative measures, which were required to be taken, were notavailable and, therefore, this clearance was not valid. The decision to construct the dam was stated to be politicalone and was not a considered decision after taking into account the environmental impacts of the project. Theexecution of SSP without a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of the environmental impacts and a decisionregarding its acceptability was alleged to be a violation of the rights of the affected people under Article 21 ofthe Constitution of India. It was further submitted that no independent authority has examined vehemently theenvironmental costs and mitigative measures to be undertaken in order to decide whether the environmentalcosts are acceptable and mitigative measures practical. With regard to the environmental clearance given in June1987, the submission of Shri Shanti Bhushan was that this was the conditional clearance and the conditionsimposed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests had been violated. The letter granting clearance, it wassubmitted, disclosed that even the basic minimum studies and plans required for the environmental impactassessment had not been done. Further more it was contended that in the year 1990, as the deadline for completionof the studies was not met, the Ministry of Environmental and Forests had declared that the clearance hadlapsed. The Secretary of the said Ministry had requested the Ministry of Water Resources to seek extension ofthe clearance but ultimately no extension was sought or given and the studies and action plans continued to lagto the extent that there was no comprehensive environmental impact assessment of the project, proper mitigationplans were absent and the costs of the environmental measures were neither fully assessed nor included in theproject costs. In support of this contention, Shri Shanti Bhushan relied upon the report of a Commission calledthe Independent Review or the Morse Commission. The said Commission had been set up by the World Bankand it submitted its report in June 1992. In the report, the Commission had adversely commented on practicallyall aspects of the project and in relation to environment, it was stated as under:Important assumptions upon which the projects are based are now questionable or are known to beunfounded. Environmental and social trade-offs have been made, and continue to be made, without afull understanding of the consequences. As a result, benefits tend to be over-stated, while social andenvironmental costs are frequently understated. Assertions have been substituted for analysis.16

We think that the Sardar Sarovar Projects as they stand are flawed, that resettlement and rehabilitation ofall those displaced by the projects is not possible under the prevailing circumstances, and that theenvironmental impacts of the projects have not been properly considered or adequately addressed.The history of environmental aspects of Sardar Sarovar is a history of non-compliance. There is nocomprehensive impact statement. The nature and magnitude of environmental problems and solutionsremain elusive.94. Shri Shanti Bhushan submitted that it had become necessary for some independent judicial authority to reviewthe entire project, examine the current best estimates of all costs (social, environmental, financial), benefits andalternatives in order to determine whether the project is required in its present form in the national interest, orwhether it needs to be restructured/modified.95. Shri Shanti Bhushan further submitted that environmental impacts of the projects were going to be massiveand full assessment of these impacts had not been done. According to him the latest available studies show thatstudies and action plans had not been completed and even now they were lagging behind pari passu. It was alsocontended that mere listing of the studies does not imply that everything is taken care of. Some of the studies wereof poor quality and based on improper data and no independent body had subjected these to critical evaluation.Re: Environmental clearance96. As considerable stress was laid by Shri Shanti Bhushan challenging the validity of the environmental clearancegranted in 1987 inter alia on the ground that it was not preceded by adequate studies and it was not a consideredopinion and there was non-application of mind while clearing the project, we first propose to deal with the contention.97. The events after the Award and upto the environmental clearance granted by the Government vide its letterdated 24 June 1987 would clearly show that some studies, though incomplete, had been made with regard todifferent aspects of the environment. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that in fact on the examination ofthe situation, the claim made with regard to the satisfactory progress was not correct. In order to carry out thedirections in the Award about the setting up of an authority, the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 was amendedand Section 6-A was inserted to set out how a statutory body could be constituted under the Act. On 10 September1980 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6-A of the Act the Central Government framed a scheme,constituted the Narmada Control Authority to give effect to the decision of the Award.98. In January 1980, the Government of Gujarat submitted to the Central Water Commission a detailed projectreport in 14 volumes. This was an elaborate report and dealt with various aspects like engineering details, canalsystems, geology of area, coverage of command area, etc. On 15 February 1980 the Central Water Commissionreferred SSP to the then Department of Environment in Department of Science and Technology. At that point oftime, environmental clearance was only an administrative requirement. An environmental checklist was forwardedto Government of Gujarat on 27 February 1980 which sought to elucidate information including following ecologicalaspects:i. Excessive sedimentation of the reservoir,ii.iii.iv.Waterlogging,Increase in salinity of the groundwater,Ground water recharge,v. Health hazard-water borne diseases, industrial pollution etc.,vi.vii.viii.ix.Submergence of important minerals,Submergence of monuments,Fish culture and aquatic life,Plant life-forests,x. Life of migratory birds,17

xi.xii.National park and sanctuaries,Seismicity due to filling of reservoir.The Government of Gujarat accordingly submitted information from September 1980 till March 1983. Thisinformation was also submitted on physio-social and economic studies for Narmada Command Area coveringcropping pattern, health aspects, water requirement etc. A note of influence of Navagam dam on fish yield includingimpact on downstream fisheries was also submitted.99. The techno-economic appraisal of the project was undertaken by the Central Water Commission which examinedwater availability, command area development, construction etc. The project was considered in the twenty-secondmeeting of the Technical Advisory Committee on Irrigation, Flood Control and Multi-purpose projects held on6.1.1983 and found it acceptable subject to environmental clearance.100. At this point of time, the matter was handled by the Department of Science and Technology which also hada Department dealing with the environment. The Environmental Appraisal Committee of the Department ofEnvironment, then headed by a Joint Secretary, had in its meeting held on 12.4.1983 approved the project, inprinciple, and required that further data be collected. This Environmental Appraisal Committee dealt with theproject on two other occasions, namely on 29.3.1985 when it deferred meeting to await report of Dewan Committeeon soil conservation and thereafter on 6.12.1985 when it deferred the meeting to await comments from the ForestDepartment. As stated hereafter, subsequently the Secretary of newly constituted Ministry of Environment andForests took up further consideration of this project along with other higher officials.101. After the project was approved, in principle, studies and collections of data were continuing. In May 1983 theNarmada Planning Group, Government of Gujarat after completion of preliminary surveys submitted work plansfor various activities such as cropping pattern, health aspects, water requirements, distribution system, lay out andoperation, development plan of the command, drainage and ground water development.102. In July 1983, a study report on ‘Ecology and Environment Impact of Sardar Sarovar Dam and its Environs’prepared by MS University was also submitted by Government of Gujarat, covering the issues as mentionedbelow: climate, geology, soil, land use, forest and wildlife, aquatic vegetation, water regime (salinity, tidal movementsetc.), fisheries, health, seismicity.103. A review meeting was convened by the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources in January 1984 which wasattended by a representative of the Department of Environment. During this meeting, it was emphasised that theissues regarding catchment area treatment, impact on wildlife, health, water logging etc. should be studied indepth for assessment. The issue of charging of cost of catchment area treatment to the project was also discussed.To sort out this matter, a meeting was subsequently convened by the Member, Planning Commission on 23 May1984 in which the Ministry of Environment & Forests took a stand that there was a need for an integrated approachto basin development covering the catchment and command area. A project report, therefore, should be preparedto cover these aspects. Since the catchment area of Narmada Sagar and Sardar Sarovar was very vast, it wasdecided that an Inter-Departmental Committee should be set up by the Ministry of Agriculture under theChairmanship of Dr M.L. Dewan. This group could submit its report only in August 1985 covering areas ofcatchment of Narmada and Sardar Sarovar and recommended that at least 25-30 percent of the area might requiretreatment for these projects.104. The consideration of the project in the Ministry, therefore, got deferred for this report on catchment areatreatment. During this time, Government of Madhya Pradesh entrusted the studies on flora for Narmada ValleyProject to the Botanical Survey of India and other related surveys were being carried out. Even though there wasa request on 10 June 1985 from the Chief Minister of Gujarat to the Minister of State for Environment and Forestsfor delinking of catchment area treatment works on clearance of the project, but this request was not agreed.105. By this time the approval of SSP was being considered by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forestswho invited other high officials in a review meeting which was held on 31 December 1985 under his Chairmanship.In this meeting, detailed presentations were made by the state officials of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtraas well as the experts who were involved in preparation of plans. The Secretary, Ministry of Environment andForests assessed and reviewed readiness on various environmental aspects like catchment area treatment,compensatory afforestation, rehabilitation, command area development, labour force and health issues, aquaticspecies, seismicity etc. and discussed the available reports in detail in the presence of the officers of the Central/18

State Governments, Botanical Survey of India, senior officers of the Forest Department, Planning Commission,Agriculture Department, the Additional Inspector of Forests, Government of India, the Deputy Inspector General,Assistant Inspector General of Forest, Government of India, senior officers of the Ministry of Environment andForests, and the Secretary, Irrigation.106. As a follow-up, the Government of Maharashtra submitted environmental data regarding affected areas inMaharashtra. This included:• Impact assessment on wildlife,• Impact assessment on genetics, specifically identifying the plant types which are likely to be lost as a result ofsubmergence,• Social anthropological studies on tribals,• The suitability of alternative land suggested for compensatory afforestation for growing,• Data regarding alternate land in large blocks,• Arrangements made for exploitation of mineral resources going under submergence,• Alternative fuels to the labourers,• Micro-climatic changes,• Arrangements made for treatment of catchment area including soil conservation afforestation,• Steps taken for preserving archaeological and historical monuments,• Proper land use,• Actions taken by Government of Maharashtra in pursuance of Dewan Committee Report,• Arrangements for monitoring for environmental impact for the project,• Data related to rehabilitation of project affected persons.107. The Government of Gujarat also forwarded to the Government of India work plans on the following:• Forests and wildlife,• Fish and fisheries,• Health aspects.The work plan on forests and wildlife incorporated actions to be taken on the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee headed by Dr Dewan on soil conservation and afforestation works in the catchment area.108. In March 1986, a meeting was convened by the Ministry of Water Resources in order to discuss the issues offisheries, flora/fauna, health, archaeology with the officers of the Botanical Survey of India, Zoological Survey ofIndia, Archaeological Survey of India and the officers of the various departments of the State and Centre to gearup the preparation of the environmental work plans. The next meeting was held on 11 April 1986. The Secretary,Ministry of Environment and Forests, who chaired the meeting of senior officials, representatives of States andother agencies, sought additional information to be made available by 30 April 1986 before assessment andmanagement decision.109. In October 1986, the Ministry of Water Resources prepared and forwarded to the Ministry of Environmentand Forests, a note on environmental aspects of the two projects and noted the urgency of the decision. It alsoconsidered the importance of the project, should the project be taken at all, environmental aspects of the projectand ultimately rehabilitation, compensatory afforestation, fauna and flora, catchment area treatment, public health19

aspect, prevention of water logging. It then considered what remained to be done and enumerated the same withtime schedule as follows:1. Madhya Pradesh to complete the detailed survey of population likely to be affected in all phases of NSP(three years),2. Maharashtra to prepare a detailed rehabilitation plan for 33 villages under phase 1 of SSP (three years),3. Madhya Pradesh to identify degraded forest lands twice the forest area to be submerged for compensatoryafforestation (six months),4. Survey of flora in Narmada Valley assigned to Botanical Survey of India (two years),5. Survey of wildlife by Zoological Survey of India (two years),6. Aerial Photographs and satellite imagery to be analysed by all India Soil and Land Use Survey Organisationand National Remote Sensing Agency and critically degraded areas in catchment. Field Surveys (three years),7. Pilot studies to determine measures for CAT in 25000 ha (three years after aerial survey).110. In this note two options were considered – one to postpone the clearance and the other was to clear it withcertain conditions with appropriate monitoring authorities to ensure that the action is taken within the time boundprogramme. It was concluded that in the light of the position set out, it was necessary that the project should becleared from the environmental angle, subject to conditions and stipulations outlined.111. The Department of Environment and Forests made its own assessment though a note of the Secretary, Ministryof Environment and Forests. It took the view that following surveys/studies as set out therein might take at least 2-3 years. It noted in this regard that:1. The estimate of the Ministry of Water Resources on analysis of aerial photographs and satellite imageries as2-3 years,2. Catchment area treatment programme can be formulated by three years thereafter,3. Wildlife census by the Zoological Survey of India would take at least three years,4. Survey by the Botanical Survey of India would take three years.It further took the view that it was essential that there should be a strong management authority. It finally concludedthat if the government should decide to go ahead with the project it should be done with provision of environmentalmanagement authority adequate power and teeth to ensure that environment management plan is implementedpari passu with engineering and other works. It concluded that effective implementation of the engineering andenvironmental measures simultaneously will go a long way and that such a project could be implemented byharmonising environmental conservation needs with the development effort.112. The Ministry of Environment and Forests had not given environment clearance of Narmada Sagar and SardarSarovar Dam despite all discussions which had taken place. The documents filed along with the affidavit of ShriP.K. Roy, Under Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office dated 27 April 2000 indicate that there was difference ofopinion with regard to the grant of environmental clearance between the Ministry of Water Resources and theMinistry of Environment and Forests. This led to the matter being referred to the Prime Minister’s Secretariat forclearance at the highest level. A note dated 20 November 1986 prepared by the Ministry of Water Resources wasforwarded to the Prime Minister’s Secretariat as well as to the Ministry of Environment and Forests after dealingwith the environmental aspects relating to rehabilitation, catchment area treatment, command area development,compensatory afforestation, flora and fauna. This note indicated that there were two options with regard to theclearance of the said project. One was to await for two to three years for the completion of the operational plansand other detailed studies and the second option was that the project should be given the necessary clearancesubject to the stipulation with regard to the action to be taken in connection with various environmental aspectsand appropriate monitoring arrangements to ensure that the actions were taken in a time bound manner. TheMinistry of Water Resources recommended that it should be possible to give environmental clearance of the20

project and ensure that the conditions are properly met through a process of clear assignment of responsibility andfrequent monitoring. The modus operandi for instituting a monitoring system could be discussed at themeeting.113. On 26 November, a meeting took place which was attended, inter alia, by the Secretary, Ministry of WaterResources, the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Additional Secretary, Prime Minister Secretariatand representatives of the Governments of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat regarding the environmental aspects ofthe Narmada Sagar and Sardar Sarovar Project. The minutes of the meeting, inter alia, disclosed ‘it was decidedthat the Government of Gujarat would identify lands for allocation to the project affected persons of MadhyaPradesh within a specified period of time. The meeting also envisaged the arrangement of a monitoring andenforcement authority to monitor the project and to ensure that the actions on the environmental aspects proceedaccording to the schedule and pari passu with the rest of the project’. The authority was not to be mainly anadvisory one but was to be given executive powers of enforcement including power to order stoppage of constructionactivity in the event of its being of the opinion that there was a lack of progress in action on the environmentfront.114. On 19 December 1986, the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests sent to the Secretary to the PrimeMinister a combined note on the environmental aspects of both the projects, namely Narmada Sagar and SardarSarovar Project. In this note, it was, inter alia, stated that there was absence and inadequacy on some importantenvironmental aspects even though the Sardar Sarovar Project was in a fairly advance stage of preparedness.The note also recommended the establishment of the Narmada Management Authority with adequate powers andteeth to ensure that the Environment Management Plan did not remain only on paper but was implemented;and implemented pari passu with engineering and other works. In the end, in the note, it was statedas follows:If, despite the meagre availability of data and the state of readiness on NSP, the Government shoulddecide to go ahead with the project it is submitted that it should do so only on the basis of providing aManagement Authority as outlined above with the hope that the public opposition, not just by vestedinterests but by credible professional environmentalists, can be overcome. Effective implementation ofthe engineering and environmental measures simultaneously would go a long way to prove that evensuch a project can be implemented by harmonising environmental conservation needs with thedevelopment effort.The choice is difficult but a choice has to be made.Along with this note was the statement showing the cost and benefits of the Narmada Sagar and Sardar Sarovardam. The same reads as follows:21

COSTS NARMADA SAGAR SARDAR SAROVARDam construction Rs 1,400 crores Rs 4,240(1981 price level) (1982 price level)Loss of forestRs 320 croresEnvironment cost Rs 30,923 crores +-Rs 8,190 croresof loss of forestsCatchment area Rs 300 crores Not availabledevelopmentCommand area Rs 243.7 crores Rs 604.0 croresdevelopmentRs 300.0 crores(conjunctive use)Loss of mineral ---- ----reservesDiversion of 42 km ---- ----railway linePopulation affected 1,29,396 (1981 census) 86,572 (Excludingpopulation withland submergedfor short periodevery year)Land submerged 91,378 ha 39,134 haBENEFITSArea irrigated 1,23,000 ha 17,92,000 haNet culturable land 1,40,960 ha 21,20,000 haPower generation 223.5 MW(firm power) 300 MW1,000 MW 118.3 MW in 2023,(installed capacity)1,450 MW(installed capacity)115. After a series of meetings held between the Secretary to Prime Minister’s office as well as the Ministry ofWater Resources, a detailed note dated 15 January 1987 was prepared by Mrs Otima Bordia, Additional Secretaryto the Prime Minister. The notes opened by saying that Narmada Sagar and Sardar Sarovar multipurpose projectshave been pending approval for a considerable amount of time. The States of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat havebeen particularly concerned and have been pressing for their clearance. The main issues of environmental concernrelated to the rehabilitation of the affected population, compensatory afforestation, treatment of the catchmentarea, command area development, pertaining particularly to drainage, water logging and salinity. The said notementioned that the Department of Environment and Forests had sent a note with the approval of the Minister forEnvironment and Forests and had recommended conditional approval to the Narmada Sagar and Sardar SarovarProjects subject to three conditions:i. Review of design parameters to examine the feasibility of modifying the height of the dam;ii.Preparation in due time, detailed and satisfactory plans for rehabilitation, catchment area treatment,compensatory afforestation and command area development;22

iii. Setting up of Narmada Management Authority with adequate power and teeth to ensure that environmentalmanagement plans are implemented pari passu with engineering and other works.116. It is further stated in the note that the Ministry of Water and the State Governments had no difficulty inaccepting conditions (ii) and (iii). With regard to review of design parameters and dam height, the Ministry ofWater Resources had examined the same after taking into consideration the comments of the Central WaterCommission and concluded that the reduction of the FRL of the Narmada Sagar Project would not be worthwhile.The Secretary to the Prime Minister had discussed the matter with the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources andSecretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests and it was agreed that the recommendation of the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests of giving clearance on the condition that items (ii) and (iii) referred to hereinabove beaccepted. The note also stated that in view of the technical report, reduction in the dam height did not appear to befeasible. This note of Mrs Otima Bordia recommended that the Prime Minister’s approval was sought on givingconditional clearance. On this note, Mrs Seria Grewal, Secretary to the Prime Minister noted as follows:Proposal at Paragraph 17 may kindly be approved. This project has been pending clearance of the last 7years and both the Chief Ministers of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh are keenly awaiting the clearance ofthe same. The agency, which is proposed to be set up to monitor the implementation of this project, willfully take care of the environmental degradation about which PM was concerned. The Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests have recommended clearance of this project subject to conditions which willtake care of PM’s apprehensions. I shall request Secretary, Water Resources, who will be Chairman ofthe Monitoring Agency, to see that no violation of any sort takes place and PM’s office will be keptinformed of the progress of this project every quarter. The matter is urgent as last week C.M. Gujarat hadrequested for green signal to be given to him before 20 January.PM may kindly approve.The Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi, instead of giving the approval, made the following note: ‘Perhaps this is agood time to try for a River Valley Authority. Discuss.’It appears that the Ministry of Environment and Forests gave its clearance to the setting up of Inter-MinisterialCommittee and on 8 April 1987, the following note was prepared and forwarded to the Prime Minister:This case has got unduly delayed. PM was anxious that speedy action should be taken. As such, since theMinistry of Environment have given its clearance subject to setting up of an Inter-Ministerial Committeeas indicated at ‘A’ above, we may give the necessary clearance. The three Chief Ministers may be requestedto come over early next week to give their clearance in principle for the setting up of a River ValleyAuthority so that simultaneous action can be initiated for giving practical shape to this concept. Theclearance of the project, however, should be communicated within two weeks as I have been informedby Shri Shiv Shankar and Shri Bhajan Lal that interested parties are likely to start an agitation and it isbetter if clearance is communicated before mischief is done by the interested parties.117. Along with another affidavit of Shri P.K. Roy, Under Secretary, Prime Minister’s office, dated 2 May 2000,some correspondence exchanged between Legislature and the Prime Minister has also been placed on recordrelating to the granting of the environmental clearance by the Prime Minister. On 31 March 1987, Shri ShankerSing Vaghela, then Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha had written a letter to the Prime Minister in which it was,inter alia, stated that the foundation stone for the Narmada Project had been laid 25 years ago by the late PanditJawahar Lal Nehru and that after the Tribunal’s Award, Mrs Indira Gandhi had cleared the project in 1978, but stillthe environmental clearance had not so far been given. It was also stated in his letter that the project was nowbeing delayed on account of so-called environmental problems. It was further stated in his letter that the SardarSarovar Project, when completed, will solve more of the pressing problems of environment than creating them. Tothis letter of Shri Vaghela, the then Prime Minister sent a reply dated 8 April 1987 stating as follows:I have seen your letter of 31 March regarding the Narmada Project. All aspects have to be carefullyconsidered before decisions are taken on a project of this size. This is being done.The environment and ecological factors cannot be disregarded. We cannot also dismiss the needs of ourtribal people. Safeguards are required to ensure that rehabilitation plans are effective.All these aspects are being examined and a decision will be taken soon.23

On 30 April 1987, a press note was released by the Government of India, in which it was stated that in a meetingpresided over by the Prime Minister, it was agreed by the Chief Ministers of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat andrepresentatives of Maharashtra Government that, a high level River Valley Authority would be set up for thecontrol and development of the river basin. This press note also stated that the Narmada Sagar and the SardarSarovar Project on the river Narmada had been cleared. Soon thereafter Shri Ahmad Pate, Member of Parliamentfrom Gujarat wrote a letter dated 14 April 1987 to Shri Rajiv Gandhi expressing his gratitude for accordingclearance to the Narmada multi-purpose project. This letter was replied to on 22 April 1987 by Shri Rajiv Gandhiwho thanked Shri Patel for writing his letter dated 14 April 1987 regarding the Narmada project. On 20 April1987, Shri Shanker Singh Vaghela wrote another letter to the Prime Minister. While thanking him for clearing theproject, it was stated that there was apprehension about the environment and ecological factors and also about theneeds of the tribal people. The Prime Minister was requested ‘to clarify to the people of Gujarat whether or notthese aspects have finally been cleared or not and all the doubts on this front have been finally set at rest or not’.On 4 May 1987 the Prime Minister replied to this letter in which it was stated as follows:There should be no grounds for any misunderstanding in this regard. The Narmada project has beencleared while at the same time ensuring that environmental safeguards will be enforced and effectivemeasures taken for the rehabilitation of tribals. You could ask the Ministry of Water Resources or theState Government for details’.Lastly, we need to make reference to a letter dated 10 June 1987 written by Srimati Chandraben SureshbhaiShrimali, an MLA of Gujarat and the reply of the Prime Minister thereto. In the said letter dated 10 June 1987,Srimati Shrimali thanked the Prime Minister for clearing the Narmada project and it was stated that the dry land ofGujarat and Saurashtra would be fertilised through Narmada Yojna. To this, reply dated 30 June 1987 of the PrimeMinister was as follows:Thank you for your letter of 10 June. The visit to Surendranagar was useful and educative. We are alllooking forward to the early implementation of the Sardar Sarovar Project. The question of environmentalprotection also needs serious attention. I wish you and the people of Surendranagar a good monsoon.118. From the documents and the letters referred to hereinabove, it is more than evident that the Government ofIndia was deeply concerned with the environmental aspects of the Narmada Sagar and Sardar Sarovar Project.Inasmuch as there was some difference of opinion between the Ministries of Water Resources and Environmentand Forests with regard to the grant of environmental clearance, the matter was referred to the Prime Minister.Thereafter, series of discussions took place in the Prime Minister’s Secretariat and the concern of the PrimeMinister with regard to the environment and desire to safeguard the interest of the tribals resulted in some timebeing taken. The Prime Minister gave environmental clearance on 13 April 1987 and formal letter was issuedthereafter on 24 June 1987.119. It is not possible, in view of the aforesaid state of affairs, for this Court to accept the contention of thepetitioner that the environmental clearance of the project was given without application of mind. It is evident, andin fact this was the grievance made by Shri Vaghela, that the environmental clearance of the project was undulydelayed. The Government was aware of the fact that number of studies and data had to be collected relating toenvironment. Keeping this in mind, a conscious decision was taken to grant environmental clearance and in orderto ensure that environmental management plans are implemented pari passu with engineering and other works,the Narmada Management Authority was directed to be constituted. This is also reflected from the letter dated 24June 1987 of Shri Mudgal giving formal clearance to the project.Re: Other issues relating to environment120. Prior to the grant of the environmental clearance on 24 June 1987, sufficient studies were made with regard todifferent aspects of environment on the basis of which conditional clearance was granted on 24 June 1987, one of thecondition of clearance being that the balance studies should be completed within a stipulated time frame. Accordingto the Government of Gujarat, the conditions imposed in the environmental clearance granted on 24 June 1987 were:a) The NCA would ensure that the environmental safeguard measures are planned and implemented paripassu with the progress of work on the project.b) The detailed survey/studies assured will be carried out as per the schedule proposed and details madeavailable to the department for assessment.24

c) The catchment area treatment programme and rehabilitation plans be so drawn so as to be completedahead of reservoir filling.d) The department should be informed of progress on various works periodically.It was further submitted by the Government of Gujarat that none of these conditions were linked to any concretetime frame.a) The first condition casts a responsibility on the NCA to ensure that the environmental aspects are alwayskept in view. The best way to attain the first and the fourth condition – was to create an environment subgroupheaded by the Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forest.b) The second condition – the conducting of surveys by its very nature – could not be made time bound.The surveys related to various activities to undo any damage or threat to the environment not only by theexecution of the project but in the long term. Therefore, any delay in the conduct of surveys was notcritical. Besides, perusal of the latest status report on environment shows that a large number of surveyswere carried out right from 1983 and also after 1987.c) The third condition has already stood fully complied with as observed by the Environment Sub-group.d) The fourth condition again involved keeping the department informed.121. It was submitted that the concept of ‘lapsing’ is alien to such conditions. In other words, formal environmentaland forest clearances granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India are not lapsed andare very much alive and subsisting.122. With regard to the lapsing of the clearance granted in 1987, it was contended by Shri Harish Salve that a letterdated 25 May 1992 was written by the secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India to theSecretary, Ministry of Water Resources stating, inter alia, that the conditions of clearance of the project were notyet met and, therefore, a formal request for extension of environmental clearance, as directed by Review Committeeof Narmada Control Authority, may be made and failing which, a formal notification may be issued revoking theearlier clearance. It is, however an admitted position that no formal notification has ever been issued revokingand/or cancelling the aforesaid two clearances at any point of time by the Ministry of Environment and Forests,Government of India. The Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests has continued to hold and chair themeetings of Environment Sub-group, Narmada Control Authority closely monitoring the execution of SSP forensuring that environmental safeguard measures are implemented pari passu with the progress of work. On 11August 1992, a letter was written by Narmada Control Authority to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment andForests sending action plan and status in respect of environmental safeguard measures taken and also statingamongst other details, the following:A number of letters were exchanged between the Ministry of Water Resources and MoEF and a greatdeal of discussion took place both in the Environment Sub-group and NCA as to whether an applicationfor extension of time as above is at all necessary. After a detailed discussion in the last NCA meeting on25 July 1992, it has been decided that NCA should clearly indicate the additional time required for thecompletion of the remaining studies like flora and fauna and some aspects of fisheries and a revisedaction plan thereon be also sent expeditiously.Keeping in view the fact and circumstances mentioned above, I request you to kindly agree to theschedule of the studies and the follow-up actions as presented here. A brief account of the action plantogether with bar charts are enclosed, presenting a pictorial view.On 15 December 1992, a letter was written to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, more particularlystating as under, amongst other things:The Narmada Control Authority has already prepared an action plan and status on the environmentalmeasures of Sardar Sarovar Project and submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forest vide theirletter No. NCA/EM/683 dated 11.8.1992 for concurrence. As may be seen from their report on action,so far there is no safeguard measures.25

During field season of every year this will be closely reviewed to attain pari passu objectives so that thesubmergence during monsoon is taken care of.The above action are scheduled to be completed by June 1993. No doubt, action in Maharashtra islagging. The matter was taken up with the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra. A copy of his reply dated7.11.1992 is enclosed. You will observe that the reasons for the lag are largely due to the un-cooperativeand agitational approach adopted by some people.Taking all these into account, you will appreciate that the action plans are adequate.The Minister for Water Resources, Government of India wrote a letter on 27 January 1993 to the Minister of Statefor Environment and Forests stating that there had been no violation of environmental safeguard measures. On 7July 1993, the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India wrote a letter to the Secretary, Ministryof Environment and Forests, Government of India, more particularly stating as under:Progress of all the environmental works is summarised in the sheet enclosed herewith. I share yourconcern for initial delay in some of the studies but now it seems that the work has started in full swing.However, there is a need to keep a close watch and I am advising the NCA for the same.By letter dated 17 September 1993, the Minister of State for Environment and Forests, Government of India wroteto the Minister for Water Resources, Government of India appreciating the efforts made by the concerned StateGovernments in making the environmental plans. The exchange of the aforesaid correspondence and the conductof various meetings of the Environment Sub-group from time to time under the Chairmanship of the Secretary,Ministry of Environment and Forests, dispels the doubt of the environment clearance having been lapsed. In otherwords, there could not have been any question of environmental clearance granted to SSP being lapsed moreparticularly when the Environment Sub-group had been consistently monitoring the progress of variousenvironmental works and had been observing in its minutes of various meetings held from time to time, about itsanalysis of the works done by the respective States in the matter of the status of studies, surveys and environmentalaction plans in relation with:i. Phased catchment area treatment;ii.iii.iv.Compensatory afforestation;Command area development;Survey of flora, fauna, etc;v. Archaeological and anthropological survey;vi.vii.viii.Seismicity and rim stability of reservoir;Health aspects; andFisheries development of SSP and NSP reservoirs.123. Shri Shanti Bhushan in the course of his submissions referred to the report of the Morse Committee insupport of his contentions that the project was flawed in more ways than one.124. The Morse Committee was constituted, as already noted, by the World Bank. Its recommendations wereforwarded to the World Bank. Apart from the criticism of this report from other quarters, the World Bank itself didnot accept this report as is evident from its press release dated 22 June 1992 where it was, inter alia, stated asfollows:The Morse Commission provided a draft of its report to the Bank for management comments severalweeks prior to the final release of the document. About two weeks before this release, the commissionprovided draft of its findings and recommendations. The final version of the report is the sole responsibilityof its authors; the report was not cleared by the World Bank.26

On resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R), Bank management agrees with the description of the R&Rsituation in each of the three states and with the report’s conclusions about the shortcomings in thepreparation and appraisal of the project’s R&R aspects. We also agree that work should have been doneearlier on the issue of people affected by the canal in Gujarat. However, we do not share the view thatresettlement would be virtually impossible even if Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh adopted the liberalresettlement package provided for displaced people by the State of Gujarat. Given the experience so far,and the fact that most of the impact of submergence on people will not occur until 1997, there is stilltime to develop meaningful R&R packages and programs in consultation with the affected peoples.Efforts are being intensified to achieve this.On environment, bank management agrees with the independent review on the need for a more effectivecentral management in the Narmada Basin on environment impact studies and mitigation programmes.Management also agrees on the need to accelerate work on estuary studies and health matters in Gujarat.However, management does not share the review’s conclusions about the environmental severity of thestudy delays. Command area issues are being addressed, including issues of water logging and salinity.On water availability (hydrology), Bank Management disagrees with the findings that there is insufficientimpoundment of water upstream of the Sardar Sarovar Dam site to make the irrigation system work asdesigned.The Government of India vide its letter dated 7 August 1992 from the Secretary, Ministry of Environment andForests did not accept the report and commented adversely on it.125. In view of the above, we do not propose while considering the petitioners’ contentions, to place any relianceon the report of Morse Committee.126. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the command area development was an important aspect asthe benefits of the project depended on this and if proper studies and plans were not done and not implemented,the very areas that were supposed to benefit will end up being rendered unfit for cultivation and the water loggingand salinisation could render vast areas of the command unproductive. It was also submitted that still there was nointegrated command area environment impact assessment. After referring to the status reports and studies regardingthe command area development, it was submitted that there was need for some independent agency to see whetherthere was ground to believe that the proposed measures will work or not. It was contended that master plan fordrainage and command area development was still not in place and even the full studies had not been done.127. While refuting the aforesaid contentions it was argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondentsthat the SSP will provide irrigation water for a cultivable command area of 1.9 million hectares in Gujarat and75,000 hectares in Rajasthan. The introduction of fresh water to the drought-prone areas of Gujarat will createobvious benefits for the farming communities. In order to safeguard these benefits, control and monitoring wassuggested by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Chairman of the Environment Sub-group inthe following areas from time to time:• Drainage, water logging and soil salinity;• Water quality;• Forest loss;• Potential impact on flora and fauna;• Effects on public health;• Socio-economic impacts.128. Pursuant thereto fifty in-depth studies had been carried out by the State Governments of Gujarat and Rajasthanand some of the studies were still in progress. One of the main objectives of carrying out these studies was toprevent excessive use of ground water and water-logging.129. There is no reason whatsoever as to why independent experts should be required to examine the quality,accuracy, recommendations and implementation of the studies carried out. The Narmada Control Authority andthe Environment Sub-group in particular have the advantage of having with them the studies which had been27

carried out and there is no reason to believe that they would not be able to handle any problem, if and when, itarises or to doubt the correctness of the studies made.130. It was submitted by Shri Shanti Bhushan that the catchment area treatment programme was not to be donepari passu but was required to be completed before the impoundment. This contention was based on the terms ofthe letter dated 24 June 1987 wherein conditional environmental clearance was granted, inter alia, on the conditionthat ‘the catchment area treatment programme and rehabilitation plans be drawn so as to be completed ahead ofreservoir filling’. Admittedly, the impounding began in 1994 and the submission of Shri Shanti Bhushan was thatcatchment area treatment programme had not been completed by them and, therefore, this very important conditionhad been grossly violated. Reference was also made to the Minutes of the Environment Sub-group meetings toshow that there had been slippage in catchment area treatment work.131. The clearance of June 1987 required the work to be done pari passu with the construction of the dams and thefilling of the reservoir. The area wherein the rainfall water is collected and drained into the river or reservoir iscalled catchment area and the catchment area treatment was essentially aimed at checking of soil erosion andminimising the silting in the reservoir within the immediate vicinity of the reservoir in the catchment area. Therespondents had proceeded on the basis that the requirement in the letter of June 1987 that catchment area treatmentprogramme and rehabilitation plans be drawn up and completed ahead of reservoir filling would imply that thework was to be done pari passu, as far as catchment area treatment programme is concerned, with the filling ofreservoir. Even though the filling of the reservoir started in 1994, the impoundment Award was much less than thecatchment area treatment which had been affected. The status of compliance with respect to pari passu conditionsindicated that in the year 1999, the reservoir level was 88.0 meter, the impoundment area was 6,881 hectares (19percent) and the area where catchment treatment had been carried out was 1,28,230 hectares being 71.56 percentof the total work required to be done. The Minutes of the Environment Sub-group as on 28 September 1999 statedthat catchment area treatment works were nearing completion in the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra. Though,there was some slippage in Madhya Pradesh, however, overall works by and large were on schedule. This clearlyshowed that the monitoring of the catchment treatment plan was being done by the Environment Sub-group quiteeffectively.132. With regard to compensatory afforestation it was contended by Shri Shanti Bhushan that it was being carriedout outside the project impact area. Further, it was submitted that the practice of using waste land or lesser qualityland for compensatory afforestation means that the forest will be of lesser quality. Both of these together defeatedthe spirit of the compensatory afforestation. It was contended that the whole compensatory afforestation programmewas needed to be looked at by independent experts.133-134. While granting approval in 1987 to the submergence of forest land and/or diversion thereof for the SSP,the ministry of Environment and Forests had laid down a condition that for every hectare of forest land submergedor diverted for construction of the project, there should be compensatory afforestation on one hectare of non forestland plus reforestation on two hectares of degraded forest. According to the State of Gujarat, it had fully compliedwith the condition by raising afforestation in 4,650 hectares of non-forest area and 9300 hectares in degradedforest areas before 1995-96 against the impoundment area of 19 percent. The pari passu achievement of afforestationin Gujarat was stated to be 99.62 percent.135. If afforestation was taking place on wasteland or less quality land, it did not necessarily follow, as wascontended by the petitioners, that the forests would be of lesser quality or quantity.136. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that downstream impacts of the project would include notonly destruction of downstream fisheries, one of the most important ones in Gujarat on which thousands of peopleare dependent but will also result in salt water ingress. The project, it was contended, will have grave impacts onthe Narmada estuary and unless the possible impacts were properly studied and made public and mitigation plansdemonstrated with the requisite budget, one could not accept the claim that these matters were being looked into.The need to assess the problem was stated to be urgent as according to the petitioners rich fisheries downstream ofthe dam, including the famed Hilsa would be almost completely destroyed. The salinity ingress threatened thewater supply and irrigation use of over 210 villages and towns and Bharuch city. All these could not only haveserious economic and other impacts but would also directly destroy the livelihood of at least 10,000 fisher families.137. Again all these contentions were based on the Morse Committee Report which the World Bank and the Unionof India had already rejected. That apart, according to the respondents, in 1992 Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam28

Limited issued an approach paper on environmental impact assessment for the river reach downstream. Thisprovided technical understanding of the likely hydrological changes and possible impact in relation thereto. It wasfurther submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the potential for environmental changes in the lowerriver and estuary had to be seen in the context of the long term development of the basin. The current stage wasclearly beneficial. The three stages could be identified as follows:Stage 1 covers the period roughly from the completion of Sardar Sarovar Dam to the year 2015. Events occurringduring this stage include (a) SSP Canal Command will have reached full development and required diversion ofsome water, (b) the upstream demand will reach about 8 MAF and (c) the Narmada Sagar Dam will have beenbuilt and placed in operation.Stage 2 covers the period from 2015 and 2030 during which the demands upstream of SSP continue to grow andwill reach about 12 MAF still below the volume of 18 MAF that Madhya Pradesh can take in 75 percent year.Stage 3 covers the period upto and beyond full basin development.The report given by M/s. H.R. Wallingford in March 1993 in respect of the downstream impacts of Sardar SarovarDam observers, inter alia, as under:The overall conclusion of the team undertaking the assessment described in this report is that there areno down stream impacts whose magnitude and effect are such as to cause doubts to be cast over thewisdom of proceeding with the Sardar Sarovar Projects provided that appropriate monitoring andmitigation measures are applied. Much of this work is already in progress under the auspices of theNPG, SSNNL and NCA. The recommendations in this report are intended to provide a synthesis of theirwork and suggestions as to whether it might be modified to enhance its usefulness.The said M/s. H.R. Wallingford in the findings of 1995 stated as under:It is thought unlikely that any significant negative environmental impacts will occur over the next 30years as a result of the project. Some possible adverse effects have been identified, the main one beingthe effect of flood attenuation on Hilsa migration. These need to be monitored and more studies undertakento better understand the conditions which trigger spawning. Beneficial impacts in this period includereduced flooding and more reliable dry season flows as well as an overall improvement of the health andwell being of the people to the reliable domestic water supply, improved nutrition and enhanced economicactivity.The above report clearly demonstrates that the construction of dam would result into more regulated and perennialflow into the river with an overall beneficial impact. It is also evident that until all the dams are constructedupstream and the entire flow of river is harnessed, which is not likely in the foreseeable future, there is no questionof adverse impact including the fishing activity and the petitioner’s assertions in this regard are ill-conceived.138. The area of submergence was stated to be rich in archaeological remains but it still remained to be studied. Itwas contended that there was danger of rich historical legacy being lost and even a small increase in the damheight would threaten to submerge many of the sites listed in the report of the Archaeological Survey of India.There were stated to be five monuments which would be affected at dam height of 90 meter or above and no workwas stated to have commenced to protect any of the five monuments.139. According to the State of Gujarat, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958charged the Central and/or State Department of Archaeology with responsibility for the protection of importantcultural sites. Under the Act, sites were classified into three categories as follows:Type 1: Monuments of national importance which are protected by the Central Government;Type 2: Monuments of religious or cultural importance which are protected by the State Government; andType 3: Monuments which are neither centrally nor state protected, but which are considered to be an importantpart of cultural heritage.Under the same law, authorities charged with the protection of the monuments are permitted to take suitablemeasures to ensure the preservation of any protected site under threat from decay, misuse or economic activity.29

In the case of Sardar Sarovar, where several sites may be submerged, the NDWT award stipulated that the entirecost of relocation and protection should be chargeable to Gujarat. Relocation work was to be supervised by theDepartment of Archaeology under the provision of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and RemainsAct, 1958.140. The three State Governments carried out a complete survey of cultural and religious sites within thesubmergence zone. The principle of these surveys was to list all archaeological sites, identify and name any siteunder state protection and further identify sites of religious or cultural significance which, although not protectedunder national law, were of sufficient value to merit relocation. So far as the State of Gujarat is concerned theDepartment of Archaeology surveyed archaeological sites in nineteen villages of submergence zone in Gujaratunder the title of ‘Archaeological Survey of Nineteen Villages in Gujarat Submerged by Sardar Sarovar Reservoir,1989’.In addition to baseline studies on archaeological aspects, work had been carried out on the anthropological heritageof Narmada Basin, including examination of evidence of ancient dwellings and cultural artifacts. The principalstudies in this behalf are described below:Anthropological Survey of India: Narmada Salvage Plan: The Narmada Salvage Plan contains detailedbackground data on palaeoanthropological, human ecological and other aspects of the Narmada Valley. By May1992, surface scanning of 17 sample villages coming under submergence had been carried out and 424 specimensincluding ancient tools, etc. had been collected.Anthropological Survey of India, Peoples of India: This project entailed a complete survey of 33 tribes of Indiaincluding those of Narmada Basin. The study covered all aspects of tribal culture in India and was published in 61volumes in 1992.Summary of current situation and progress, Government of GujaratSurvey of villages in submergence zoneIdentification of cultural sitesCollection of data and documentation of sitesSelection of appropriate sitesAction PlanComplete for all items in the StateComplete for all items in the StateCompleteCompleteCompleteIt was further submitted on behalf of respondents that no centrally or state protected cultural sites were located inthe submergence area of the project. In Gujarat, the Department of Archaeology concluded that the temples ofShoolpaneshwar and Hampheshwar were important monuments and should be moved to a higher level. Sites wereselected for constructing new Shoolpaneshwar and Hampheshwar temples in consultation with temple trustees.Shoolpaneshwar had been relocated and reconstructed near Gora, about 15 km downstream from the presentlocation. Hampheshwar was also constructed at higher ground in consultation with the temple trustees andpranpratistha also planned on 22 and 24 April 2000 i.e. before the temple was submerged.141. In relation to flora and fauna studies, it was contended by the petitioners that the studies had finished onlyrecently and the action plans were awaited in many cases. In the meanwhile, extensive deforestation of thesubmergence zone had taken place, as also part of the area had been submerged, even as the studies have been on.It was also contended that the impact on some of the wild ass sanctuaries in Kachchh would be very severe.142. The guidelines of the Ministry of Environment and Forests required that while seeking environmental clearancefor hydropower projects, surveys should be conducted so that the status of the flora and fauna present could beassessed. A condition of environmental clearance of 1987 as far as it related to flora and fauna was that theNarmada Control Authority would ensure in-depth studies on flora and fauna needed for implementation ofenvironmental safeguard measures. It is the case of the respondents that number of studies were carried out andreports submitted. It was observed that the submergence area and catchment area on the right bank of the proposedreservoir exhibited a highly degraded ecosystem which was in contrast to the left bank area where there was fairly30

good forest cover which formed part of Shoolpaneshwar Wildlife Sanctuary. With regard to the study of fauna, thesaid report indicated that a well-balanced and viable eco-system existed in the Shoolpaneshwar Sanctuary. Moreover,with the construction of dam, water availability and soil moisture will increase and support varieties of plants andanimals.143. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the whole project will have serious impacts on health,both around the submergence area and in the command. The preventive aspects had not been given attention.There was no linkage between the studies and work.144. On behalf of State of Gujarat, it was contended that large number of studies had been carried out on the healthprofile of villagers including studies on water related diseases in SSP command area including the area downstreamof the dam. The study of MS University in 1983 and other studies concluded that the most common diseases in thebasin were malaria, scabies, dysentery and diarrhoea. Of these only a threat to malaria needed to be of concern.The study concluded that the incidence of hygiene-related diseases other than malaria could be reduced by betterwater availability. The Gujarat work plan covered villages within 10 km radius of the reservoir including resettledpopulation and made provision for the monitoring, surveillance and control of malaria. The principal features ofthe Gujarat Work Plan included establishment of a hospital at Kevadia near the dam site, strengthening of laboratoryfacility including establishment of mobile unit residual insecticidal spraying operations etc. This showed that thearea of public health was in no way being neglected.145. The petitioner was also critical of the functioning of the Environment Sub-group as it was contended that theclaims of the studies and progress report were accepted at face value and without verification. It was also contendedthat the Ministry of Environment and Forests had grossly abdicated its responsibility. This submission was basedon the premise that clearance, which had been granted, had lapsed and the Ministry of Environment and Forestsdid not insist on the Ministry of Water Resources for its renewal and further more the Ministry of Environment andForests had not taken any cognizance of the criticism about environmental aspects contained in the Morse CommitteeReport. Lastly the Five Member Group in its first report was critical in many respects and pointed out studieswhich had remained incomplete but no cognizance was taken by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Therepeated abdication, it was submitted, of the responsibility by the Ministry of Environment and Forests indicatedthat it was not taking the whole issue with the seriousness it deserved.146. On behalf of the State of Gujarat, it was contended that various alleged dangers relating to environment asshown by the petitioners were mostly based on the recommendations of the Morse Committee Report and FiveMember Group. While the report of the Morse Committee does not require out attention, the same not having beenaccepted either by the World Bank or the Government of India. Para 4.5.2 of the report of Five Member Groupwhich relates to creation of the Environmental Sub-group commends its establishment, its observation about itspowers is as follows:4.5.2. It must be noted that the Environment Sub-group is not a body which merely observes and reports,but watchdog body which can recommend even the stoppage of work if it feels dissatisfied with theprogress on the environment front. The recommendations of the Environment Sub-group will have to beconsidered by the NCA, and if there is any difference of opinion at that level, it will have to be referredto the Review Committee, which has the Minister of Water and Environment and Forests as a member Itseems doubtful whether any more effective mechanism could have been devised or made to work withinthe framework of our existing political and administrative structures, particularly in the context of afederal system. The Secretary (Environment and Forests) has, in fact, been given a special position inthe NCA inasmuch as he can insist on matters being referred to the Review Committee and at the ReviewCommittee the Minister of Environment and Forests forcefully plead the environmental cause; he canalso make the environmental point of view heard at the highest level. If in spite all these arrangements,the environmental point of view fails to be heard adequately, and if project construction tends to take anover-riding precedence, that is a reflection of the relative political importance of these two points ofview in our system. This can be remedied only in the long term through persuation and education, andnot immediately through institutional arrangements which run counter to the system (emphasis added).Apart from the fact that we are not convinced that construction of the dam will result in there being an adverseecological impact, there is no reason to conclude that the Environment Sub-group is not functioning effectively.The group which is headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests is a high powered body whosework cannot be belittled merely on the basis of conjectures or surmises.31

147. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel while relying upon A.P. Pollution Control Board v. ProfessorM.V. Mayadu (1999) 2 SCC 718 submitted that in cases pertaining to environment, the onus of proof is on theperson who wants to change the status quo and, therefore, it is for the respondents to satisfy the Court that therewill be no environmental degradation.148. In A.P. Pollution Control Board’s case this Court was dealing with the case where an application was submittedby a company to the Pollution Control Board for permission to set up an industry for production of ‘BSS CastorOil Derivatives’. Though later on a letter of intent had been received by the said company, the Pollution ControlBoard did not give its no-objection certificate to the location of the industry at the site proposed by it. ThePollution Control Board, while rejecting the application for consent, inter alia, stated that the unit was a pollutingindustry which fell under the red category of polluting industry and it would not be desirable to locate such anindustry in the catchment area of Himayat Sagar, a lake in Andhra Pradesh. The appeal filed by the companyagainst the decision of the Pollution Board was accepted by the appellate authority. A writ petition was filed in thenature of public interest litigation and also by the Gram Panchayat challenging the order of the appellate authoritybut the same was dismissed by the High Court. On the other hand, the writ petition filed by the company wasallowed and the High Court directed the Pollution Control Board to grant consent subject to such conditions asmay be imposed by it.149. It is this decision which was the subject-matter of challenge in this Court. After referring to the differentconcepts in relation to environmental cases like the ‘precautionary principle’ and the ‘polluter-pays principle’,this Court relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India(1996) 5 SCC 647 and observed that there was a new concept which places the burden of proof on the developeror industrialist who is proposing to alter the status quo and has become part of our environmental law. It wasnoticed that inadequacies of science had led to the precautionary principle and the said ‘precautionary principle’in its turn had led to the special principle of burden of proof in environmental cases where burden as to theabsence of injurious effect of the actions proposed is placed on those who want to change the status quo. At page735, this Court, while relying upon a report of the International Law Commission, observed as follows:The precautionary principle suggests that where there is an identifiable risk of serious and irreversibleharm, including, for example, extinction of species, widespread toxic pollution is a major threat toessential ecological processes, it may be appropriate to place the burden of proof on the person or entityproposing the activity that is potentially harmful to the environment.150. It appears to us that the ‘precautionary principle’ and the corresponding burden of proof on the person whowants to change the status quo will ordinarily apply in a case of polluting or other project or industry where theextent of damage likely to be inflicted is not known. When there is a state of uncertainty due to lack of data ormaterial about the extent of damage or pollution likely to be caused then, in order to maintain the ecology balance,the burden of proof that the said balance will be maintained must necessarily be on the industry or the unit whichis likely to cause pollution. On the other hand where the effect on ecology or environment of setting up of anindustry is known, what has to be seen is that if the environment is likely to suffer, then what mitigative steps canbe taken to offset the same. Merely because there will be a change is no reason to presume that there will beecological disaster. It is when the effect of the project is known then the principle of sustainable developmentwould come into play which will ensure that mitigative steps are and can be taken to preserve the ecologicalbalance. Sustainable development means what type or extent of development can take place which can be sustainedby nature/ecology with or without mitigation.151. In the present case we are not concerned with the polluting industry which is being established. What is beingconstructed is a large dam. The dam is neither a nuclear establishment nor a polluting industry. The constructionof a dam undoubtedly would result in the change of environment but it will not be correct to presume that theconstruction of a large dam like the Sardar Sarovar will result in ecological disaster. India has experience of over40 years in the construction of dams. The experience does not show that construction of a large dam is not costeffective or leads to ecological or environmental degradation. On the contrary there has been ecological upgradationwith the construction of large dams. What is the impact on environment with the construction of a dam is wellknownin India and, therefore, the decision in A.P. Pollution Control Board’s case (supra) will have no applicationin the present case.152. Reference was made by Shri Shanti Bhushan to the decision of the United States District Court in the case ofSierra Club v. Robert F. Froehlke, 359 F.Supp. 1289 (1973). In that case work had begun on Wallisville Project32

which, inter alia, consisted of a construction of a low dam. It was the case of the plaintiff that the construction ofthe project would destroy hundreds of thousands of trees and enormous grain, fish and other wild life will losetheir habitat and perish. It was contended that the defendants were proceeding in violation of law by not complyingwith the requirements of National Environment Policy Act, 1969 (NEPA). Plaintiff, inter alia, sought an injunctionfor restraining the undertaking of the project in violation of the said Act. The District Court held that notwithstandingthe substantial amount of work that had already been done in connection with the project, the failure to satisfy fulldisclosure requirement of NEPA injunction would be issued to halt any further construction until requirements ofNEPA had been complied with; that even though there was no act like NEPA in India at the time when environmentalclearance was granted in 1987, nevertheless by virtue of Stockholm Convention and Article 21 of the Constitutionthe principles of Sierra Club decision should be applied.153. In India notification had been issued under Section 3 of the Environmental Act regarding prior environmentalclearance in the case of undertaking of projects and setting up of industries including inter-state river projects.This notification has been made effective from 1994. There was, at the time when the environmental clearancewhich was granted in 1987, no obligation to obtain any statutory clearance. The environmental clearnace whichwas granted in 1987 was essentially administrative in nature, having regard and concern of the environment in theregion. Change in environment does not per se violate any right under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indiaespecially when ameliorative steps are taken not only to preserve but to improve ecology and environment and incase of displacement, prior relief and rehabilitation measures take place pari passu with the construction of thedam.154. At the time when the environmental clearance was granted by the Prime Minister whatever studies wereavailable were taken into consideration. It was known that the construction of the dam would result in submergenceand the consequent effect which the reservoir will have on the ecology of the surrounding areas was also known.Various studies relating to environmental impact, some of which have been referred to earlier in this judgment,had been carried out. There are different facets of environment and if in respect of a few of them adequate data wasnot available it does not mean that the decision taken to grant environmental clearance was in any way vitiated.The clearance required further studies to be undertaken and we are satisfied that this has been and is being done.Care for environment is an on going process and the system in place would ensure that ameliorative steps are takento counter the adverse effect, if any, on the environment with the construction of the dam.155-156. Our attention was also drawn to the case of Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hiram G. Hill [437 US 153, 57L Ed 2d 117, 98 S Ct 2279] where the Tennessee Valley Authority had begun construction of the Tellico Dam andreservoir project on a stretch of Little Tennessee River. While major portion of the dam had been constructed theEndangered Species Act, 1973 was enacted wherein a small fish popularly known as the snail darter was declaredan endangered species. Environmental groups brought an action in the Unites States District Court for restrainingimpounding of the reservoir on the ground that such an action would violate the Endangered Species Act bycausing the snail darter extinction. The District Court refused injunction but the same was granted by the UnitedStates Court of Appeal. On further appeal the US Supreme Court held that the Endangered Species Act prohibitedthe authority for further impounding the river. The said decision has no application in the present case becausethere is no such act like the Endangered Species Act in India or a declaration similar to the one which was issuedby the Secretary of the Interior under that Act. What is, however, more important is that it has not been shown thatany endangered species exists in the area of impoundment. In Tennessee Valley Authority case it was an acceptedposition that the continued existence of snail darter which was an endangered species would be completelyjeopardised.157. Two other decisions were referred to by Shri Shanti Bhushan – Arlington Coalition on Transportation v.John. A Volpe [458 F.2d 1323 (1972)] and Environmental Defense Fund. Inc v. Corps of Engineers of UnitedStates Army [325 F.Supp.749 (1971)]. In both these decisions it was decided that the NEPA would be applicableeven in case of a project which had commenced prior to the coming into force of the said Act but which had notbeen completed. In such cases there was a requirement to comply with the provisions of NEPA as already noticedearlier. The notification under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act cannot be regarded as having anyretrospective effect. The said notification dated 27 January 1994, inter alia, provides as follows:Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2)of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3)of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central Government hereby directs that onand from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette expansion or modernisation33

of any activity (if pollution load is to exceed the existing one) or a new project listed in Schedule I to thisnotification, shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless it has been accorded environmentalclearance by the Central Government in accordance with the procedure hereinafter specified in thisnotification.This notification is clearly prospective and inter alia prohibits the undertaking of a new project listed in ScheduleI without prior environmental clearance of the Central Government in accordance with the procedure now specified.In the present case, clearance was given by the Central Government in 1987 and at that time no procedure wasprescribed by any statute, rule or regulation. The procedure now provided in 1994 for getting prior clearancecannot apply retrospectively to the project whose construction commenced nearly eight years prior thereto.Relief and rehabilitation158. It is contended by the petitioner that as a result of construction of dam, over 41,000 families will be affectedin three States spread over 245 villages. The number of families have increased from 7,000 families assessed bythe Tribunal. It was further contended that the submergence area can be broadly divided into two areas, fully tribalarea which covers the initial reach of about 100 or so villages which are almost 100 percent tribal and hilly. Theseinclude all the 33 villages of Maharashtra, all 19 of Gujarat and many of the Madhya Pradesh. The second part ofthe submergence area is the mixed population area on the Nimad plains with a very well developed economy thatis well connected to the mainstream. While the tribal areas are stated to be having a rich and diverse resource baseand the self sufficient economy, the lack of so-called modern amenities like roads, hospitals and schools are farmore a reflection of the neglect and disregard by the Government over the last fifty years than on anything else. Ofthe 193 villages stated to be affected by Sardar Sarovar submergence 140 lie in the Nimad plains. The populationof these villages area are a mixture of caste and tribal and these villages have all the facilities like schools, postoffices, bus services etc.159. It was contended that whereas the project authorities talk only about the families affected by submergence,none of the other families affected by the project are considered PAFs nor has any rehabilitation package beendesigned for them. These non-recognised categories for whom no rehabilitation package is given are stated to bethose persons living in submergence area who are not farmers but are engaged in other occupation like pettytraders, village shop-keepers who are to be affected by submergence; colony affected people whose lands weretaken in 1960 to build the project colony, warehouses, etc.; canal affected people who would be losing 25 percentof their holdings because of the construction of the canals; drainage affected people whose lands will be acquiredfor drainage; 10,000 fishing families living downstream whose livelihood will be affected; lands of the tribalswhose catchment treatment area had been carried out; persons who are going to be affected by the expansion ofShoolpaneshwar Sanctuary; persons going to be affected by Narmada Sagar Project and Garudeshwar Weir. It wascontended that there was an urgent need to assess comprehensively the totality of the impact and prepare categoryspecific rehabilitation policies for all of them.160. It was also submitted that the total number of affected families in all the three States as per the master planprepared by the Narmada Control Authority is 40,727. According to the petitioner, however, this figure is anunderestimate and the estimate of the land required for these PAFs is also on a much lower side. The basis formaking this submission is:1. In each village there are many persons left out of the Government list of declared PAFs. These are joint holders(non recognised as landed oustees or PAFs) and the adult sons.2. Incorrect surveys have been conducted and the affected persons have serious apprehensions about the validityof the surveys since at many places the level markings are suspect, in many cases the people affected at higherlevels have been given notices for lower levels, many others at the same levels have been left out and so on. It isalso alleged that there have been shortcomings in the policies and if they are corrected many more oustees will beentitled to PAFs status. Further more the cut-off date for PAFs in Madhya Pradesh including adult son is linked tothe date of issuance of notification. Since land acquisition process is still incomplete the number of adult sonsentitled to land would increase with the issuance of fresh Section 4 notifications.161. From the aforesaid it was contended that the total impact in terms of number of oustees as well as landentitlement will be much larger than what is considered in the master plan.34

162. It is also submitted that there were major lacunae in the said policy like the three States having dissimilarpolicy for R&R. This difference in rehabilitation packages of different States, with the package of Gujarat beingmore favourable, is leading to a situation where the oustees are forced to shift to Gujarat. The other lacunae whichare stated to have many serious problems are alleged to be non provision for fuelwood and grazing land withfodder. No provision for rehabilitation of people involved in non-agricultural occupation. According to the petitionerthe number of affected people even by submergence have been underestimated. The policy regime governing themhas many serious lacunae. The increase in the numbers is due to lack of proper surveys and planning and theprovision of just and due entitlements to the PAFs. Since this process of providing just entitlements is still incomplete,and the policies need a thorough review, the numbers and entitlements are likely to go up further. Even themagnitude of the task of R&R cannot be assessed properly till the above are considered and proper policiesintroduced.163. It is also contended that before embarking on the Sardar Sarovar Project it was necessary that the Master Planfor rehabilitation of the families to be affected is completed. According to the petitioner the Master Plan whichwas submitted in the Court cannot be regarded as an acceptable Master Plan inasmuch as it had no mention ofpeople affected by Sardar Sarovar Project other than those affected by submergence and it has no estimate of theresource base of the oustees in their original village. Further the plan makes no estimation of the forest land,grazing land and resources being used by the oustees. The Master Plan persists with the discriminatory anddifferential policies which are less than just to the oustees. There is also no planning for community resettlementeven though the Award of the Narmada Tribunal made detailed provision regarding rehabilitation of the ousteeswhich required that there should be village wise community rehabilitation.164. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the following stipulation for rehabilitation contained in theAward of the Narmada Tribunal ‘That Gujarat shall establish rehabilitation villages in Gujarat in the irrigationcommand of the SSP on the norms hereafter mentioned for rehabilitation of the families who are willing to migrateto Gujarat’. The submission is that no specific rehabilitation village, as envisaged by the Tribunal’s Award, hasbeen established in Gujarat. The issue of community resettlement is stated to be not merely an issue of communityfacility but is a more fundamental issue. The issue is really one of preserving social fabric and community relationof the oustees which, it is alleged, is being destroyed due to dispersal of the community who are being resettled atdifferent sites.165. Dealing with the situation of those oustees who have been resettled in Gujarat it is established by the petitionerthat there are large number of grievances of the said oustees in 35 resettlement sites. With the passage of time thenumber of problems overall would become much more, is the contention. The petitioner finds fault with thequality of land which has been given in Gujarat to the oustees contending that large number of oustees have beengiven land outside the command area of irrigation and in some resettlement sites there is a serious water-loggingproblem. It also contends that though some amenities have been provided but they are not adequate. It is also thecase of the petitioner that sufficient land for resettlement of the oustees from Madhya Pradesh is not available inGujarat despite the claim of the State of Gujarat to the contrary.166. With regard to Maharashtra it is contended by the petitioner that the official figure of the total number ofPAFs affected in Maharashtra is not correct and the number is likely to be more than 3113 PAFs estimated by theState of Maharashtra. Furthermore adequate land of desired quality has not been made available for resettlementtill 90 m and even thereafter. Reference is made to the affidavit of the State of Maharashtra in which it is stated thatit proposes to ask for the release of 1500 hectares of forest land for resettlement and the submission on behalf ofthe petitioner is that release of such land shall be in violation of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and is not in publicinterest for forest cover will be further depleted.167. With regard to the State of Madhya Pradesh it is submitted that as per the award the PAFs have a right tochoose whether to go to Gujarat or to stay in the home State. The State of Madhya Pradesh is stated to haveplanned the whole resettlement based on the assumption that overwhelming proportion of oustees entitled to landwill go to Gujarat yet even for the limited number of oustees who are likely to stay in Madhya Pradesh thesubmission is that no land is available. The petitioner also disputes the averment of the State of Madhya Pradeshthat the oustees have been given a choice as to whether they would like to go to Gujarat or stay in the home State.According to the petitioner the majority of the oustees would prefer to stay in the home State that is MadhyaPradesh but sufficient land for their resettlement in Madhya Pradesh is not available. According to the petitionerthe State of Madhya Pradesh has stated that it does not have land for any PAFs above 830 and even for 830 PAFs35

the land is not available. It is also submitted that the Madhya Pradesh Government cannot wriggle out of itsresponsibility to provide land for the oustees by offering them cash compensation. The petitioner finds fault withthe effort of the State of Madhya Pradesh to push the oustees to Gujarat whose rehabilitation scheme is moreattractive and beneficial than that of Madhya Pradesh.168. The petitioner further contends that one of the fundamental principle laid down is that all the arrangementsand resettlement of the oustees should be made one year in advance of submersion. In B.D. Sharma v. Union ofIndia’s case this Court has held that resettlement and rehabilitation has to be done at least six months in advanceof submersion, complete in all respects. It is therefore, contended that since offers to the Madhya Pradesh ousteesaffected at 90 m to be settled in Madhya Pradesh has not been made, there cannot be any question of furtherconstruction till one year after the resettlement of these PAFs at 90 m.169. The petitioner is also critical of the functioning of the R&R Sub-group and it is contended that the said Subgrouphas not taken any cognizance of the various issues and problems enumerated by the petitioner. It is submittedthat in assuring that the relief and rehabilitation arrangements are being done the said R&R Sub-group merelyaccepts the assertions of the Government rather than verifying the claims independently. There is also a complaintregarding the manner in which the R&R Committee takes decisions on the spot when it makes frequent (sic) visits.It is contended that the decisions which are taken in an effort to solve the grievances of the oustees is done in themost insensitive way. The R&R Sub-group, it is contended, is an official agency of the Government itself being aSub-group of the NCA, which is pushing the project ahead and the question raised by the petitioner is as to howcan the same body which is building a project and executing the R&R be also monitoring it.170. It is a case of the petitioners that there is a need for independent monitoring agency in the three States whoshould be asked to monitor the R&R of the oustees and see to the compliance with the NWDT award. No constructionshould be permitted to be undertaken without clearance from this authority. Lastly it is contended that largenumber of grievances are persisting even after twenty years and the pace of resettlement has been slow. Thepetitioner seems to have contended that the relief and rehabilitation can be manageable only if the height of thedam is significantly lessened which will reduce submersion and displacement of people.171. In order to consider the challenge to the execution of the project with reference to relief and rehabilitation itis essential to see as to what is the extent and the nature of submergence.172. The Sardar Sarovar Reservoir level at 455 ft would affect 193 villages in Madhya Pradesh, 33 villages inMaharashtra and 19 villages in Gujarat. The submergence villages are situated on the banks of river Narmadahaving gentle to steep slopes of the Satpura hills. A village is considered affected even when the water leveltouches the farm/hut at lowest level. It may noted that only 4 villages (3 villages in Gujarat and1 village in Madhya Pradesh) are getting submerged fully and the rest 241 villages are getting affectedpartially.173. The state-wise land coming under submergence (category-wise) is given below:(In hectares)Sr. No. Type of Land STATES TOTALGujarat Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh1. Cultivated land 1,877 1,519 7,883 11,2792. Forest land 4,166 6,488 2,731 13,3853. Other land including 1,069 1,592 10,208 12,869river bedTotal land 7,112 9,599 20,822 37,533174. The aforesaid table shows that as much as 12,869 hectares of the affected land is other than agricultural andforest and includes the river bed area.36

175. When compared to other similar major projects, the Sardar Sarovar Project has the least ratio of submergenceto the area benefited (1.98 percent only). The ratio of some of the existing schemes is as much as 25 percent as canbe seen from the table below:Sr. Name of project State Benefit Submergence Irrigation Percentage ofNo. area (in ha) area (in ha) benefit per ha area submergedsubmergence to area irrigated1. Hirakud Orissa 2,51,150 73,892 3.40 29.422. Shriramsagar Andhra Pradesh 2,30,679 44,517 5.24 19.143. Gandhisagar Madhya Pradesh 5,03,200 66,186 7.60 13.154. Paithan Maharashtra 2,78,000 35,000 7.94 15.295. Tungbhadra Karnataka 3,72,000 37,814 9.84 10.166. Pench Maharashtra 34,000 7,750 12.13 8.247. Nagarjunsagar Andhra Pradesh 8,95,000 28,500 31.40 3.188. Bhakra Himachal Pradesh 6,76,000 16,800 40.24 2.489. Sardar Sarovar Gujarat 19,03,500 37,533 50.71 1.97176. Countering the assertion that the construction of the dam would result in large scale relocation and uprootingof tribals, the factual position seems to be that the tribals constitute the bulk of PAFs in Gujarat and Maharashtra,namely, 97 percent and 100 percent respectively. In the case of Madhya Pradesh, the tribals PAFs are only 30percent while 70 percent are non-tribals.177. The tribals who are affected are in indigent circumstances and who have been deprived of the modern fruitsof development such as tap water, education, road, electricity, convenient medical facilities, etc. The majority ofthe project affected families are involved in rain-fed agricultural activities for their own sustenance. There ispartial employment in forestry sector. Since the area is hilly with difficult terrain, they are wholly dependent onvagaries of monsoon and normally only a single crop is raised by them. Out of the PAFs of Madhya Pradesh whohave re-settled in Gujarat, more than 70 percent are tribal families. Majority of the total tribal PAFs are stated tohave already been re-settled in Gujarat after having exercised their option. It is the contention of the State ofGujarat that the tribals in large number have responded positively to the resettlement package offered by that state.178. In Madhya Pradesh, the agricultural lands of the tribal villages are affected on an average to the extent of 28percent whereas in the upper reaches i.e. Nimad where the agriculture is advanced, the extent of submergence, onan average, is only 8.5 percent. The surveys conducted by HMS Gaur University (Sagar), the Monitoring andEvaluation Agency set up by Government of Madhya Pradesh, reveals that the major resistance to relocation isfrom the richer, non-tribal families of Nimad who fear shortage of agricultural labour if the landless labourersfrom the areas accept resettlement.179. The displacement of the people due to major river valley projects has occurred in both developed and developingcountries. In the past, there was no definite policy for rehabilitation of displaced persons associated with the rivervalley projects in India. There were certain project specific programmes for implementation on temporary basis.For the land acquired, compensation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 used to be given to theproject affected families. This payment in cash did not result in satisfactory resettlement of the displaced families.Realising the difficulties of displaced persons, the requirement of relief and rehabilitation of PAFs in the case ofSardar Sarovar Project was considered by the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal and the decision and final orderof the Tribunal given in 1979 contains detailed directions in regard to acquisition of land and properties, provisionof land, house plots and civic amenities for the resettlement and rehabilitation of the affected families. Theresettlement policy has thus emerged and developed along with Sardar Sarovar Project.37

180. The Award provides that every displaced family, whose more than 25 percent of agricultural land holding isacquired, shall be entitled to and be allotted irrigable land of its choice to the extent of land acquired subject to theprescribed ceiling of the State concerned with a minimum of two hectares of land. Apart from this land basedrehabilitation policy, the Award further provides that each project affected person will be allotted a house plot freeof cost and resettlement and rehabilitation grant. The civic amenities required by the Award to be provided atplaces of resettlement include one primary school for every 100 families, one Panchayat Ghar, one dispensary, oneseed store, one children’s park, one village pond and one religious place of worship for every 500 families, onedrinking water well with trough and one tree platform for every 50 families, approach road linking each colony tomain road, electrification, water supply, sanitary arrangement, etc. The State Governments have liberalised thepolicies with regard to resettlement and have offered packages more than what was provided for in the Award e.g.the Governments of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat have extended the R&R benefits through theirliberalised policies even to the encroachers, landless/displaced persons, joint holders, tapu land (island) holdersand major sons (18 years old) of all categories of affected persons. The Government of Maharashtra has decidedto allot one hectare of agricultural land free of cost even to unmarried daughters of all categories of PAFs.181. In the environmental clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests vide its letter dated 24June 1987, one of the conditions stipulated therein was for information from the project authorities on variousaction plans including Rehabilitation Master Plan of 1989.182. It is the contention of the petitioners that the failure to prepare a master plan constitutes non-compliance withthe requirement of the Tribunal’s Award as well as environmental clearance. The Tribunal’s Award does not usethe expression ‘Master Plan’ but as per Clause XI Sub-clause IV(2)(ii), what is required, is as under:The three States by mutual consultation shall determine within two years of the decision of the Tribunal,the number and general location of rehabilitation villages required to be established by Gujarat in itsown territory.183. It is with regard to this clause in the Award that, presumably the aforesaid letter of 24 June 1987 grantingenvironmental clearance required the preparation of the new Master Plan.184. In 1988 when the project was first cleared by the Planning Commission from investment angle. It wasestimated that 12,180 families would be affected in three States. Based on these numbers, the State Governmentsindependently prepared their action plans and announced their R&R policy based on Tribunal’s Award. On thebasis of the said action plans the Narmada Control Authority submitted Rehabilitation Master Plan to the Ministryof Environment and Forests along with its letter dated 3/4.5.1989. Out of the total population, which is affected bythe submergence, large number are tribals and hence attention was paid by the State Governments to liberalisetheir policies for protecting the socio-economic and cultural milieu and to extend the R&R benefits even to othercategories of persons who were not covered by the Tribunal’s Award. This led to the liberalisation of the R&Rpackages by the three States which packages have been referred to hereinabove. As a result of the liberalisation ofthe packages, the number of PAFs as estimated in 1992 by the State Governments were 30,144. Based on thematerial available, the three State Governments prepared individual action plans in 1993 but those action planswere integrated by the Narmada Control Authority first in 1993 and again in 1995 as an integrated Master Plan topresent a holistic picture of the R&R programme. The Master Plan deals with socio-economic and cultural milieuof PAFs, the legal framework, the R&R policy and procedures, implementation machinery, organisation of R&R,monitoring and evaluation, empowerment of women and youth, special care for vulnerable groups, financial plansfor R&R etc. As per the 1990 Master Plan the total PAFs have increased to 40,227 from 30,144 due to addition of100 more genuine PAFs in Maharashtra. This Master Plan includes village-wise, category-wise PAFs and theirpreference in R&R to settle in home State or in Gujarat.The reason for increase in number of PAFs has been explained in the Master Plan and the reasons given, inter alia,are:(a) After CWC prepared backwater level data, the number of PAFs in Madhya Pradesh (MP) increased by 12,000PAFs as their houses are affected in a 1 in 100 years flood.(b) Government of Gujarat (GoG) included major sons of the dyke villages as PAFs.(c) Cut-off date for major sons was extended by GoG and Government of Maharashtra (GoM).38

(d) PAFs affected in MP, have increased due to delay in publication of Section 4 notification under the LandAcquisition Act.(e) Persons socially or physically cut-off due to impounding of water in reservoir, are also considered as PAFs byall the three States.(f) All the three States decided to consider encroachers as PAFs.(g) Major unmarried daughters in Maharashtra are considered as a separate family by Government of Maharashtra.(h) Some genuine PAFs were earlier left out (as many stayed in remote areas or used to undertake seasonalmigration to towns and developed areas in search of casual work).185. As far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, its contention is that the task of R&R is not impossible asrecognised by the FMG-I in its 1994 report and according to the State, it is fully ready and prepared to resettle inGujarat all the PAFs upto FRL 455 ft.186. On 13 November 1996, a meeting of the Review Committee of the Narmada Control Authority chaired by theUnion Minister of Water Resources was held. This meeting was attended by the Chief Ministers of all the Statesincluding Rajasthan and representatives of Ministry of Environment and Forests, Ministry of Social Justice andEmpowerment, Government of India. In the meeting it was unanimously decided that the reviews of theimplementation of the resettlement and rehabilitation measures will be undertaken for every five-metre height ofthe dam jointly by the concerned R&R Sub-group and Environment Sub-group so that work could progress paripassu with the implementation measures. In its meeting held on 6 January 1999, the R&R Sub-group of the NCAobserved that arrangements made by the states for R&R of the balance families pertaining to the dam height EL 90metre were adequate and a meeting of the party States should be convened shortly to finalise the action plan.Pursuant thereto a special inter-state meeting was convened under the chairmanship of the Secretary to theGovernment of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on 21 January 1999 at New Delhi and actionplan for resettlement and rehabilitation for balanced (sic) families of dam height EL 90 metre was finalised forimplementation by the States. It is the case of the State of Gujarat that it had issued notices and made offers inJanuary 1998 to PAFs affected at RL 90 metre in connection with the selection of land and their resettlement inGujarat. According to it, even in respect of PAFs affected at RL 95 metre, notices were issued in January 1999 andto the PAFs included in the subsequent list, notices were issued in September 1999. The process of land selectionby PAFs who had opted to resettle in Gujarat at RL 95 meter was already started. According to the Union of India,the Master Plan was under implementation and the progress of R&R at various elevations of dam viz. EL 90metre, EL 95 metre, EL 110 metre and FRL 138.68 metre had been made.187. The measures which have been implemented for sustainable development with regard to preserving thesocio-cultural environment of the displaced persons in the States of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Madhya Pradeshare stated to be as follows:• Three choices to the people for the selection of relocation sites.• Integration of the displaced person with the neighbouring villages by organising medical check-up camps,animal husbandry camps, festivals, eye camps, rural development seminar for village workers etc.• Establishment of rehabilitation committees at different levels.• Respect of traditional beliefs, rituals and rights at the starting of house construction, the day and time ofleaving the old house and village and the day and time of occupying the new house etc.• The sacred places at the native villages are being recreated along with their settlements at new sites.• Installation of all the religious deities with the due consultation of religious heads.• Promotion of cultural milieu viz social festivals, religious rights, rights of passage, presence of priests, shaman,kinsmen, clansmen etc.• Special consideration for the preservation of holistic nature of the culture.39

• Proper use of built-in-mechanism of cultural heritage of the displaced persons.• Launching of culturally appropriate development plan.• Genuine representation of the traditional leader.188. The Tribunal had already made provision of various civic amenities which were further liberalised by theState Governments during implementation. The existing development programmes were strengthened for ensuringsustainable development at the rehabilitation sites. These were Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP)for agriculture, business and village industries; Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) for nutrition, healthand education; Jawahar Rojgar Yojna (JRY); aids for improved seeds, fertilisers, irrigation, animal husbandry;Training Rural Youth for self-employment (TRYSEM); Employment Guarantee Schemes (EGS), Social Assistance;Industrial Training Institute (ITI); Tribal Development Programme (TDP), financial benefits to the backwardclasses, economically weaker sections, tribals and other backward classes (OBC), eye camps, subsidies to farmers(seed, tractorisation, fertilisers, diesel, etc.) agricultural prices support subsidy etc.189. Other benefits which were extended for improving the quality of life of the resettled PAFs included fodderfarm, mobile sale, shop of fodder, seeds cultivation training, initial help in land preparation for agricultural activities,better seeds and fertilisers, access to finance, special programme for women in the traditional skills entrepreneurshipdevelopment, employment skill formation, different plantation programmes, special emphasis for pasturemanagement, environment awareness and education programme, programme for bio-gas/smokeless chulhas, safedrinking water supply, electricity, lift irrigation, fertilisers kit distribution, gypsum treatment of soil etc.190. The project authorities in these three States of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra represented thatcomprehensive health care was available in tribal areas where the displaced families had been resettled. It wascontended that extensive preventive health measures like mass immunisation, anti-malaria programme, familywelfareprogrammes, child development schemes, etc. had been undertaken. What is important is that primaryhealth centres were established at relocation sites for all necessary health facilities to the PAFs.191. The submission on behalf of Union of India was that there was a well established mechanism of Governmentof India for coordination and monitoring of R&R programmes in case of Sardar Sarovar Project. The R&R Subgroupand Rehabilitation Committee of Narmada Control Authority are responsible for applying their independentmind on R&R. The Sub-group convenes its meeting regularly to monitor and review the progress of R&R whileRehabilitation Committee visits the submergence areas/relocation sites to see whether the rehabilitation is takingplace physically and to hear the individual problems of the PAPs. The R&R group, keeping in view the progressof relief and rehabilitation, has not permitted the height to be raised, until and unless it is satisfied that adequatesatisfactory progress has been made with regard to R&R. Whereas at an earlier point of time in 1994, the constructionschedule had required the minimum block level to be raised to 85 meters, the R&R Sub-group had permitted thesame to be raised to EL 69 meter only during that period to match the R&R activity. It was in the meeting of R&RSub-group on 6 January 1999 after the R&R Sub-group had reviewed the progress and had satisfied itself that theland for resettlement in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, which were available, was more than requiredfor the resettlement of the balanced PAFs that it cleared the construction upto the dam height EL 90 meters. Theaction plan for the same had been approved and is under implementation by the States concerned.192. The petitioners had contended that no proper surveys were carried out to determine the different categories ofaffected persons as the total number of affected persons had been shown at a much lower side and that many hadbeen denied PAF status. From what is being stated hereinabove, it is clear that each state has drawn a detailedaction plan and it is after requisite study had been made that the number of PAFs have been identified. The numberhas substantially increased from what was estimated in the Tribunal’s Award. The reason for the same, as alreadynoticed, is the liberalisation of the R&R packages by the State Governments. Except for a bald assertion, thereappears to be no material on which this Court can come to the conclusion that no proper surveys had been carriedout for determining the number of PAFs who would be adversely affected by the construction of the dam.193. Resettlement and rehabilitation packages in the three States were different due to different geographical,local and economic conditions and availability of land in the States. The liberal packages available to the SardarSarovar Project oustees in Gujarat are not even available to the project affected people of other projects in Gujarat.It is incorrect to say that the difference in R&R packages, the package of Gujarat being the most liberal, amountsto restricting the choice of the oustees. Each State has its own package and oustees have an option to select the onewhich was most attractive to them. A project affected family may, for instance, choose to leave its home State of40

Madhya Pradesh in order to avail the benefits of more generous package of the State of Gujarat while other PAFssimilarly situated may opt to remain at home and take advantage of the less liberal package of the State of MadhyaPradesh. There is no requirement that the liberalisation of the packages by three states should be to the same extentand at the same time, the states cannot be faulted if the package which is offered, though not identical with eachother, is more liberal than the one envisaged in the Tribunal Award.194. Dealing with the contention of the petitioners that there were large number of persons who were living in thesubmergence area and were not farmers and would lose their livelihood due to loss of the community and/or lossof the river and were not being properly rehabilitated, Mr Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel contended thatthis averment was not true. According to him, all the families in the 105 hilly tribal villages were agriculturists,cultivating either their own land or government land and all of whom would be eligible for alternative agriculturalland in Gujarat. Only a small number of non-agriculturalists, mainly petty shopkeepers were found in these villagesof tribal areas. In Gujarat there were 20 such non-agriculturalists families out of a total of 4,600 affected familiesand all of these had been resettled as per their choice so that they could restart their business. In Maharashtra outof 3,213 affected families, not a single family was stated to fall under this category. Amongst the affected familiesof Madhya Pradesh, the figure of such non-agriculturalists family was also stated to be not more than couple of100. In our opinion, it is neither possible nor necessary to decide regarding the number of people likely to be soaffected because all those who are entitled to be rehabilitated as per the Award will be provided with benefits of thepackage offered and chosen.195. With regard to the colony affected people whose 1,380 acres of land was acquired in six villages for theconstruction of a colony, most of the landholders had continued to stay in their original houses and about 381persons were stated to have been provided permanent employment in the project works. At the time, the land wasacquired in 1962-63, compensation was paid and in addition thereto, the Government of Gujarat devised a specialpackage in August 1992 providing ex-gratia payment upto Rs 36,000 to the land losers for purchase of productiveassets or land for those who had not received employment in the project.196. Dealing with the contention of the petitioners that there will be 23,500 canal affected families and theyshould be treated at par to that of oustees in the submergence area, the respondents have broadly submitted thatthere is a basic difference in the impacts of the projects in the upstream submergence area and its impacts in thebeneficiary zone of the command area. While people, who were oustees from the submergence zone, requiredresettlement and rehabilitation, on the other hand, most of the people falling under the command area were in factbeneficiaries of the projects and their remaining land would now get relocated with the construction of the canalleading to greater agricultural output. We agree with this view and that is why, in the Award of the Tribunal, theState of Gujarat was not required to give to the canal affected people the same relief which was required to begiven to the oustees of the submergence area.197. Dealing with the contention of the petitioners that the oustees were not offered a chance to resettle in Gujaratas a community and that there was a clear requirement of village wise communication rehabilitation which had notbeen complied with, the contention of the respondents was that no provision of Tribunal’s Award had been shownwhich caused any such obligation on the Government of Gujarat. What the Award of the Tribunal required isresettlement of the PAFs in Gujarat at places where civic amenities like dispensary, schools, as already beenreferred to hereinabove, are available.198. Subsequent to the Tribunal’s Award, on the recommendation of the World Bank, the Government of Gujaratadopted the principle of resettlement that the oustees shall be relocated as village units, village sections or familiesin accordance with the oustees preference. The oustees’ choice has actively guided the resettlement process. Therequirement in the Tribunal’s Award was that the Gujarat shall establish rehabilitation villages in Gujarat in theirrigation command of the Sardar Sarovar Project on the norms mentioned for rehabilitation of the families whowere willing to migrate to Gujarat. This provision could not be interpreted to mean that the oustees familiesshould be resettled as a homogeneous group in a village exclusively set up for each such group. The concept ofcommunity wise resettlement, therefore, cannot derive support from the above quoted stipulation. Besides, thenorms referred to in the stipulation relate to provisions for civic amenities. They vary as regards each civic amenityvis-à-vis the number of oustees families. Thus, one panchayat ghar, one dispensary, one childrens’ park, one seedstore and one village pond is the norm for 500 families, one primary school (3 rooms) for 100 families and adrinking water well with trough and one platform for every 50 families. The number of families to which the civicamenities were to be provided was thus not uniform and it was not possible to derive therefrom a standardisedpattern for the establishment of a site which had nexus with the number of oustees’ families of a particular community41

or group to be resettled. These were not indicators envisaging resettlement of the oustees families on the basis oftribes, sub-tribes, groups or sub-groups.199. While resettlement as a group in accordance with the oustees preference was an important principle/objective,the other objectives were that the oustees should have improved or regained the standard of living that they wereenjoying prior to their displacement and they should have been fully integrated in the community in which theywere resettled. These objectives were easily achievable if they were resettled in the command area where the landwas twice as productive as the affected land and where large chunks of lands were readily available. This was whatthe Tribunal’s Award stipulated and one objective could not be seen in isolation of the other objectives.200. The 1995 Master Plan of the Narmada Control Authority also pointed out that ‘the Bhils, who are individualisticpeople building their houses away from one another, are getting socialised; they are learning to live together’.Looking to the preferences of the affected people to live as a community, the Government of Gujarat had basicallyrelied on the affected families’ decision as to where they would like to relocate, instead of forcing them to relocateas per a fixed plan.201. The underlined principle in forming the R&R policy was not merely of providing land for PAFs but there wasa conscious effort to improve the living conditions of the PAFs and to bring them into the mainstream. If onecompares the living conditions of the PAFs in their submerging villages with the rehabilitation packages firstprovided by the Tribunal’s Award and then liberalised by the States, it is obvious that the PAFs had gainedsubstantially after their resettlement. It is for this reason that in the Action Plan of 1993 of the Government ofMadhya Pradesh it was stated before this Court that ‘therefore, the resettlement and rehabilitation of people whosehabitat and environment makes living difficult does not pose any problems and so the rehabilitation and resettlementdoes not pose a threat to the environment’. In the affidavit of Dr Asha Singh, Additional Director (Socio & CP),NVDA, as produced by the Government of Madhya Pradesh in respect of visit to R&R sites in Gujarat during 21to 23 February 2000 for ascertaining the status relating to grievance and problems of Madhya Pradesh PAFsresettled in Gujarat. It was, inter alia, mentioned that ‘the PAFs had informed that the land allotted to them is ofgood quality and they take the crops of cotton, jowar and tuwar. They also stated that their status has improvedfrom the time they had come to Gujarat but they want that water should start flowing in the canals as soon aspossible and in that case they will be able to take three crops in one year as their land is in the command area’.Whereas the conditions in the hamlets, where the tribals lived, were not good enough the rehabilitation packageensured more basic facilities and civic amenities to the resettled oustees. Their children would have schools andchildren’s park, primary health centre would take care of their health and, of course, they would have electricitywhich was not a common feature in the tribal villages.202. Dealing with the contention of the petitioners that there was no provision for grazing land and fuelwood forthe PAFs, it is rightly contended by the State of Gujarat that grazing land was not mandated or provided for in theTribunal’s Award but nevertheless, the grazing land of six villages was available for use of PAFs. It may be that thegrazing land was inadequate but this problem will be faced by the entire State of Gujarat and not making such landavailable for them does not in any way violate any of the provisions of the Award.203. With regard to providing irrigation facilities, most of the resettlement of the project affected families wereprovided irrigation facilities in the Sardar Sarovar Project command area or in the command areas of other irrigationprojects. In many of the out-of-command sites, irrigated lands were purchased. In cases where the irrigationfacilities were not functioning, the Government of Gujarat had undertaken the work of digging tubewells in orderto avoid any difficulty with regard to irrigation in respect of those oustees who did not have adequate irrigationfacilities. It was contended that because of the delay in the construction of the project, the cut-off date of 1 January1987 for extending R&R facilities to major sons were not provided. The Tribunal’s Award had provided for landfor major sons as on 16.8.1978. The Government of Gujarat, however, extended this benefit and offered rehabilitationpackage by fixing the cut-off date of 1.1.1987 for granting benefits to major sons. According to the Tribunal’sAward, the sons who had become major one year prior to the issuance of the notification for land acquisition wereentitled to be allotted land. The land acquisition notification had been issued in 1981-82 and as per the Award, itwas only those sons who had become major one year prior to that date who would have become eligible forallotment of land. But in order to benefit those major sons who had attained majority later, the Government ofGujarat made a relaxation so as to cover all those who became major upto 1.1.1987. The Government of Gujaratwas under no obligation to do this and would have been quite within its right to merely comply with the provisionsof the Tribunal’s Award. This being so, relaxation of cut-off date so as to give extra benefit to those sons whoattained age of majority at a later date, cannot be faulted or criticised.42

204. Dealing with the contention of the petitioners that there is a need for a review of the project and that anindependent agency should monitor the R&R of the oustees and that no construction should be permitted to beundertaken without the clearance of such an authority, the respondents are right in submitting that there is nowarrant for such a contention. The Tribunal’s Award is final and binding on the States. The machinery of NarmadaControl Authority has been envisaged and consulted under the Award itself. It is not possible accept that NarmadaControl Authority is not to be regarded as an independent authority. Of course, some of the members are Governmentofficials but apart from the Union of India, the other States are also represented in this Authority. The project isbeing undertaken by the Government and it is for the Government authorities to execute the same. With theestablishment of the R&R Sub-group and constitution of the Grievances Redressal Authorities by the States ofGujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, there is a system in force which will ensure satisfactory resettlementand rehabilitation of the oustees. There is no basis for contending that some outside agency or the National HumanRights Commission should see to the compliance of the Tribunal Award.Monitoring and rehabilitation programme205. The Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India is the nodal ministry for the Sardar Sarovar Projectand other union ministries involved are the Ministries of Environment and Forests and Social Justice andEmpowerment. As a consequence of the Tribunal’s Award, Narmada Control Authority was created to co-ordinateand oversee the overall work of the project and to monitor the R&R activities including environmental safeguardmeasures. The Review Committee of the Narmada Control Authority consists of the Union Minister of WaterResources as its chairman, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Chief Ministers of Gujarat,Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan as members. This Review Committee may suo moto or on theapplication of any party State or the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests review any decision of theNarmada Control Authority. In the Narmada Control Authority, Resettlement & Rehabilitation (R&R) Sub-grouphas been created for closely monitoring the R&R progress. This Sub-group is headed by the Secretary, Governmentof India, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment and is represented by members/invitees of participatingStates, academic institutions having expertise in R&R, independent socio-anthropological experts and nongovernmentalorganisations. The functions of this Sub-group are as follows:1. To monitor the progress of land acquisition in respect of submergence land of Sardar Sarovar Project andIndira (Narmada) Sagar Project (ISP).2. To monitor the progress of implementation of the action plan of rehabilitation of project affected families inthe affected villages of SSP and ISP in concerned states.3. To review the R&R action plan from time to time in the light of results of the implementation.4. To review the reports of the agencies entrusted by each of the states in respect of monitoring and evaluationof the progress in the matter of resettlement and rehabilitation.5. To monitor and review implementation of resettlement and rehabilitation programmes pari passu with theraising of the dam height, keeping in view the clearance granted to ISP and SSP from environmental angle bythe Government of India and the Ministry of Environment and Forests.6. To coordinate states/agencies involved in the R&R programmes of SSP and ISP.7. To undertake any or all activities in the matter of resettlement and rehabilitation pertaining to SSP and ISP.Rehabilitation Committee206. This Court vide order dated 9.8.1991 in B.D.Sharma v. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 93 directed theformation of a committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment,Government of India to visit the submergence areas/resettlement sites and furnish the report of development andprogress made in the matter of rehabilitation. The Rehabilitation Committee headed by the Secretary, Governmentof India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and having representatives of the three State Governmentsas its members had been constituted. It is the case of the Union of India that this Committee visited regularly thevarious R&R sites and submergence villages in the three states and submitted reports to this Court from time totime. By order dated 24 October 1994, this Court in the aforesaid case of B.D. Sharma (supra) observed that allthe directions issued by the Court from time to time have been complied with and nothing more be done in the43

petition and the petition was disposed off. Most of the recommendations/observations as made by this committeeare stated to have been complied fairly by the states concerned.207. In addition to the above, the officials of the Narmada Control Authority are also stated to be monitoring theprogress of R&R regularly by making field visits. The individual complaints of the PAFs are attended and broughtto the notice of the respective governments.Grievances redressal mechanism208. The appeal mechanism has been established in the policy statements by all the three state governments for theredressal of grievances of the PAFs. According to this mechanism, if a displaced person is aggrieved by thedecision of the rehabilitation officers in respect of any R&R process, he may appeal to the concerned agency/officers.209. Vide Resolution dated 17 February 1999, the Government of Gujarat set up a high-level authority calledGrievance Redressal Authority (GRA) before whom the oustees already resettled and to be resettled in Gujaratcould ventilate their grievances for redressal after their resettlement till the process of resettlement and rehabilitationis fully completed. The said Grievances Redressal Authority has Mr Justice P.D. Desai, retired Chief Justice as itschairman. This machinery had been established to:a) create an authority before whom oustees who have resettled in the State of Gujarat can ventilate theirgrievances relating to the R&R measures taken by the State of Gujarat;b) ensure that the oustees already settled and the oustees settled hereinafter in the R&R sites created forresettlement and rehabilitation of the oustees from the State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra receiveall the benefits and amenities in accordance with the Award and the various government resolutionsfrom time to time;c) ensure that Gujarat oustees resettled in Gujarat have received all the benefits and amenities due to them.210. The Gujarat Rehabilitation Authority has installed a permanent in-house Grievances Redressal Cell (GRC)within Sardar Sarovar Punarvasavat Agency. The Grievances Redressal Cell deals with the grievances of the PAFsand the grievances redressal is undertaken by it in the following three ways.i. Grievances Redressal Cell deals grievances in the regular course on the basis of applications, i.e. byholding enquiries and implementing decisions taken pursuant thereto.ii. Grievances redressal on the spot through mechanism of Tatkal Fariyad Nivaran Samiti.iii. Grievances redressal under the mechanism of Single Window Clearance System.211. Grievances Redressal Authority has surveyed sites in which PAFs have been resettled and has submittedreports to this Court from time to time which disclose substantial compliance with the terms of the Award and therehabilitation package.212. In its fourth report dated 15.11.1999, the Grievances Redressal Authority observed ‘pursuant to the grievancesredressal measures taken by GRC, whose approach is positive and grievance redressal oriented, a considerablenumber of grievances have been resolved by extensive land improvement work done on agricultural land at differentsites within a period of six months i.e. April-September 1999’.213. The R&R Sub-group in its 20 field visit of the R&R sites in Gujarat on 12/13.1.2000 has noted as follows:The Committee after the visit and from interaction with the PAFs, concluded that there is vast improvementin the conditions of PAFs at these R&R sites as compared to the grievances reported in the same sitesduring previous visits by the Committee/NCA officers. Assessing the perception of PAFs the Committeeobserved that the majority of PAFs are happy and joining mainstream of country’s development.214. The Grievances Redressal Cell has dealt with and decided a total of over 6,500 grievances.215. At the instance of Grievances Redressal Authority, an agricultural cell is set up in Sardar Sarovar PunarvasavatAgency with effect from 1 July 1999. This was done with an objective of enhancing the productivity of agricultural44

land allotted to PAFs by adopting of suitable farm management practices and in assisting in resolving land relatedgrievances. Similarly, w.e.f. 1.5.1999, Medical cells have been set up in Sardar Sarovar Punarvasavat Agency forensuring effective functioning of medical infrastructure and providing organised system of supervising andmonitoring and also for conducting health survey-cum-medical check up activities. The Grievance RedressalAuthority has become an effective monitoring and implementing agency with regard to relief and rehabilitation ofthe PAFs in Gujarat. Apart from resolving independent grievances of PAFs and enforcing the compliance of theprovisions of the Award through its exhaustive machinery and mechanism, it is also trying to guide in respect ofvarious other issues not covered by the provisions of the Award such as:i. Vocational training of the oustees;ii.iii.iv.Review of Narmada oustees employment opportunity rules;Issue relating to Kevadia Colony;Issue relating to tapu land;v. Development of Kevadia as a tourist centre etc.216. In Maharashtra, a local committee was constituted comprising of Additional Collector (SS), Divisional ForestOfficer, Resettlement Officer and two representatives of the oustees nominated by the local Panchayat Samitiesfrom among the elected members of the village panchayats in the project affected villages/talukas. This committeeis required to examine the claims of the PAFs and give directions within a time frame and an appeal from itsdecision lies to the Commissioner. In addition thereto, vide notification dated 17 April 2000 the Government ofMaharashtra has set up a Grievances Redressal Authority in line with that established by the State of Gujarat andMr Justice S.P. Kurdukar, retired Judge of this Court, has been appointed as its Chairman. This authority isexpected to be analogous to the Grievances Redressal Authority of Gujarat.217. In Madhya Pradesh, the grievances of the PAFs have first to be made by a claim which will be verified by thepatwari and then scrutinised by the tehsildar. PAFs may file an appeal against the decision of R&R official beforethe district collector who is required to dispose off the same within a period of three months. In the case ofMadhya Pradesh also, by Notification dated 30 March 2000, the Government of Madhya Pradesh has constituteda Grievances Redressal Authority similar to the one in Gujarat with Mr Justice Sohni, retired Chief Justice ofPatna High Court as its Chairman.Independent monitoring and evaluation agencies218. The monitoring and evaluation of the rehabilitation programme is also being carried out by the independentsocio-anthropological agencies appointed by the State Governments of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Gujaratas well as the Narmada Control Authority. These agencies, which are professional and academic institutes, conductsurveys and in-depth studies relating to PAFs in the submergence and rehabilitation villages. The main object ofthe monitoring is oriented towards enabling the management to assess the progress, identify the difficulties,ascertaining problem areas, provide early warning and thus call for corrections needed immediately.219. The Centre for Social Studies, Surat is the monitoring agency for the Government of Gujarat. This institutehas prepared 24 six monthly progress reports in relation to the resettlement of PAFs of submergence villages ofGujarat. Similarly for the project affected families of Madhya Pradesh/Maharashtra who have resettled in Gujarat,the Government of Gujarat has appointed the Gujarat Institute of Development Research, Ahmedabad as theindependent monitoring and evaluation agency for monitoring R&R programmes.220. In Madhya Pradesh the monitoring and evaluation had been carried out by Dr H.S. Gaur University, Sagarand the same has been disengaged now and a new agency is being appointed. The findings of Dr H.S. GaurUniversity, Sagar indicated that displaced families in Madhya Pradesh are, by and large, happy with the newresettlement in Gujarat and one of the main reasons behind their happiness was that the shifting from hamlets hadchanged their socio-economic status.221. In Maharashtra the monitoring and evaluation was earlier being done by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences,Mumbai. This agency had reported that overall literacy rate among project affected persons above six years of ageis about 97 percent, while illiteracy in submergence villages was rampant. Furthermore the report showed that in45

the submergence villages, the tribals mostly relied on traditional healers for their ailments. Now the current scenariois that at R&R sites, health centres and sub-centres have been established.222. It is thus seen that there is in place an elaborate network of authorities which have to see to the execution andimplementation of the project in terms of the Award. All aspects of the project are supervised and there is a reviewcommittee which can review any decision of the Narmada Control Authority and each of the three rehabilitatingstates have set up an independent grievances redressal authority to take care that the relief and rehabilitationmeasures are properly implemented and the grievances, if any, of the oustees are redressed.223. On 9 May 2000, this Court directed the State Governments of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra tofile affidavits disclosing the latest status of resettlement and rehabilitation work for the existing as well as prospectiveoustees likely to be affected by raising the height of the dam.224. Pursuant to the said direction affidavits on behalf of the three States have been filed and, in response thereto,the petitioners have also filed an affidavit.225. On behalf of the State of Gujarat the affidavit of Shri V.K. Babbar, Commissioner (Rehabilitation) and ChiefExecutive Officer, Sardar Sarovar Punarvasvat Agency (SSPA) has been filed, according to which at FRL 138.68m the status with regard to PAFs to be resettled is stated to be as follows:State Total number of PAFs resettled/allotted Balance PAFs to beagricultural land in Gujaratresettled in GujaratGujarat 4,575 25Maharashtra 710 290Madhya Pradesh 3,280 10,450TOTAL 8,585 10,765226. It is the case of Gujarat that 8,565 PAFs have been accommodated in 182 R&R sites fully equipped with therequisite civic amenities as provided by the Tribunal Award. The agricultural land allotted to these PAFs is 16,973hectares.227. Dealing specifically with the status of PAFs at RL 90 m, 95 m and 110 m, it is averred in the said affidavit thatall the PAFs of Gujarat at RL 90 m have been resettled and the balance PAFs of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtraaffected at RL 90 mtr have already been offered R&R package in Gujarat. The process of resettlement is continuingand reliance is placed on the observation of the GRA which has stated in its fourth report dated 15 November 1999that ‘There is substantial compliance of the resettlement and rehabilitation measures as mandated by the finalreport of NWDT, including provision of civic amenities, and also of all the inter-linked provisions of the Governmentof Gujarat and that, therefore, PAFs from the States of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra affected upto the heightof RL 90 m can be accommodated as per their choice at these selected 35 sites in Gujarat’.228. With respect to the PAFs affected at 95 m the affidavit states that the PAFs of Gujarat have already beensettled and while the affected PAFs of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra have been offered R&R package inGujarat in January 1999 and January 2000. The RL 95 m action plan for these PAFs has also been prepared by theGovernment of Gujarat in consultation with the Governments of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra and has beensent to the NCA. The case of the State of Gujarat, therefore, is that all the PAFs wanting to be resettled in Gujarathave been offered the package but consent of all the PAFs has not so far been received but the Government ofGujarat has sufficient land readily available which can be allotted to the said PAFs as soon as they come and selectthe same.229. With regard to the status of PAFs at RL 110 m all the PAFs of Gujarat have been resettled and 2,761 PAFs(2,642 of Madhya Pradesh and 119 of Maharashtra) remain to be resettled in Gujarat and R&R package will beoffered to them before November 2000. The land which is required to be allotted to them is stated to be around6,074 hectares and the State of Gujarat has in its possession 8,146 hectares. The civic amenities in 40 new R&Rsites are scheduled to be completed by December 2000 and these sites would serve to accommodate not only PAFs46

etween RL 95 m and RL 110 m but would also serve to accommodate PAFs from submergence villages whichwould be getting affected at levels above RL 110 m. The action plan giving the village wise details is said to havebeen sent to NCA in June 2000 for its approval.230. According to the said affidavit the balance number of PAFs remaining to be resettled at Gujarat at FRL138.68 m is 10,765. Taking into account that an additional area of 10 percent towards house plot and civicamenities would be required in addition to the allotment of minimum 2 hectares of agricultural land, the total landrequirement per PAF would be approximately 2.2 hectares. For planning purposes in respect of 10,765 PAFs theland requirement would be about 23,700 hectares. As against this requirement the status of land, as per the saidaffidavit, under different categories with the Government of Gujarat is stated to be as under:Sr. No. Particulars Land (ha)1. Land identified (offers received in respect of private 15,716land and Government land)2. Land available (private land for which price is approved 480by Expert Committee and offer/counter offer conveyedand acceptance of land holder is obtained)3. Land in possession of SSPA/GoG in 12 districts 8,416Total 24,612It is averred that between March and 21 June 2000 the land in possession as well as the land identified hasincreased considerably.231. It has also been explained in the said affidavit that the Government of Gujarat has a well established practiceof procuring land for R&R at realistic market prices from willing sellers. Officers hold discussions with prospectiveresettlers, verify the suitability of land and after the price is settled, the same is procured through legal process ofLand Acquisition Act and consent awards are passed so that the PAPs are assured of undisputed legal title freefrom encumbrances. This process of negotiated purchase has been streamlined. At the instance of GRA, a retiredjudge of the High Court is now appointed as Chairman of the Expert Committee with retired senior governmentsecretaries as its members. This Expert Committee oversees the exercise of purchase of suitable land at the marketprice. At the instance of the GRA, PAPs are being issues Sanads for the land allotted to them which will ensureprovision of a proper legal document in their favour.232. Dealing with the term of the Award to the effect that Gujarat shall acquire and make available a year inadvance of the submergence before each successive stage, land and house sites for rehabilitation of the ousteefamilies from Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra who are willing to migrate to Gujarat, the affidavit states that theGujarat Government has already identified sufficient land for accommodating the balance PAFs remaining to beresettled in Gujarat at FRL 138.68 m. In respect of PAFs upto RL 110 m, Gujarat has sufficient land available tomeet the R&R requirements but for the PAFs above 110 m, suitable land has already been identified and the samewould be acquired and made available one year in advance of submergence before each successive stage. Theaffidavit gives reason as to why it is not advisable for the State, at this stage to acquire the total requirement of landfor FRL in one go. What is stated in the affidavit is as follows:i. Since at present GoG has sufficient land to meet R&R requirement to accommodated PAFs upto RL 110m, it would not be necessary to acquire further land immediately, especially when the additional landwould be required only after the R&R Sub-group and Environment Sub-group give approval for RL 95 mto RL 110 m after examining the preparedness at different stages. This would ensure that public money isnot unnecessarily blocked for a long period.ii.By acquiring land much before it would be required, problems of illegal trespass are likely to arise.iii. The excess land would, by and large, remain fallow and no agricultural production would take place.iv. If the land remains fallow for long the overall productivity of the land would be adversely affected.47

v. At the time of allotment, the state government would again have to spend a sizeable amount to removeweeds, bushes, small trees etc.vi. The State Government would have to incur a sizeable amount to prevent tampering with the boundarymarks, prevent neighbouring farmers removing the top soil or from diverting natural drains passing throughtheir fields toward the land purchased for R&R etc.233. The affidavit also gives facts and figures showing that all requisite civic amenities have been developed andmade available at the R&R sites. Some of the salient features which are highlighted in this behalf are as under:• A three-room primary school is provided in all MP/MH sites irrespective of the number of families settled.• A dispensary with examination room, medical equipment, medicines is provided in all MP/MH sites irrespectiveof the number of resettled families.• 3439 PAFs (86 percent) out of the total MP/MH PAFs resettled in Gujarat have availed of the Rs 45,000financial assistance and built pucca core houses.• Overhead tanks for drinking water are provided in large R&R sites.• At the instance of GRA, toilets are being provided in the houses of PAFs with the help of NGOs.234. The total cost incurred so far by the Government of Gujarat in providing the land and civic amenities uptoMay 2000 is stated to be 194 crores. The Grievances Redressal Cell is stated to have redressed large number ofgrievances of the PAFs whether they were related to land, grant of civic amenities or others. The salient features ofworking of the Grievance Redressal Cell is stated to be as follows:• At present 2 senior IAS officers with supporting staff are working exclusively for redressal of grievances.• A reasoned reply is given to the applicants. The applicant is also informed that if he is aggrieved with thedecision he may prefer an appeal to GRA within thirty days.• The single window clearance system’s main objective is to proactively resolve grievances and to avoid delaysin inter-departmental co-ordination.• Tatkal Fariyad Nivaran Samitis are held in the R&R sites to resolve grievance of the PAFs in an open forum.• The PAFs are being involved at every stage of grievance redressal. The works have been carried out in mostcases by the PAFs.• The agriculture officers of the agricultural cell are actively helping, guiding the PAFs in their agriculturaloperations and upgrading their skills.235. With a view to effectively rehabilitate and assimilate the PAPs Vasahat Samitis have been constituted in 165R&R sites, consisting of 5 PAPs, one of whom is a female. This ensures the participation of the PAFs in theprocess of development and these Samitis are vested with the responsibility to sort out minor problems. With aview to ensure more effective participation in Panchayat affairs and better integration of PAPs an order underSection 98 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 has been issued by the Government of Gujarat providing that thereshall be upto two invitees from amongst the PAPs depending upon the number of PAPs at the sites in the villagePanchayat within whose jurisdiction the R&R are situated. Pursuant to this 196 PAPs have been inducted asinvitees to then village panchayats. The salient features of the rehabilitation programme of the PAPs are as follows:• PAFs are given productive assets in kind (7,000/PAF) to purchase bullocks, bullock carts, oil engines, etc.• PAFs are given subsistence allowance (Rs 4,500/PAF) in cash to meet contingency needs in the initial period.• Vocational training is provided to PAFs for improving their income levels, priority being given to thosedependents who are not entitled to be declared as PAFs on their own rights. Tool kits are supplied either freeor with 50 percent subsidy.• NGOs are actively involved in all the rehabilitation activities such as conducting training classes.48

• PAFs are being covered by the ongoing developmental schemes of the Government (DRDA, Tribal Sub Planetc.)• Extension (Agriculture) officers has been appointed for approximately every 150 families to guide them inagriculture operation and assist them in day to day problems (getting ration cards, khedut khatavahis etc.)• In recent years focus is on empowering the PAFs, and making them self dependent.236. Medical cells have been set up for providing services and treatment to PAPs free of cost. The cell is headedby Deputy Director (Medical) and is having a nucleus of medical experts consisting of a physician, a pediatrician,a gynecologist, 21 MBBS doctors, pharmacists etc. The salient features of the medical help programmes for thebenefit of PAPs is stated to be as follows:• The medical officers and paramedic staff are making house-to-house visits to motivate the PAPs to comeforward to avail of the medical services.• In all dispensaries, a full time multipurpose health worker (female) is available.• Multi-specialisation diagnostic/treatment camps are organised fortnightly, where advanced investigationsand diagnostic facilities like ECG, X-ray and ultrasound are available.• Patients requiring further services are brought to government hospitals or any other specialty hospital andnecessary treatment given free of cost.• GoG has placed an order for mobile medical hospital equipped with diagnostic and treatment equipments.• A comprehensive health survey and medical check up covering 29,423 PAPs has been completed. A specialrecord system of family health folder and health profile of each PAP is prepared.• Nutrition supplements are given to children (upto 6 years), expectant and lactating mothers through theIntegrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS).• Special food supplement in the form of ‘Hyderabad Mix’ is given to malnourished children and vulnerabletarget groups.• School going children are covered under the mid-day meal scheme.• Under TB Control, all chest symptomatic persons are screened by special examinations like sputum microscopy,X-ray, blood tests and persons found positive for TB are given domiciliary treatment under direct observationof doctors or paramedics. In 77 cases, treatment is completed and patients are cured.• Under preventive health care, health education material is distributed and Health and Cleanliness Shibirs areorganised.• A special survey covering physically handicapped and mentally retarded persons has been organised andsocial welfare benefits given.• Other national health programmes (maternal child health, immunisation, school health check up, family welfareetc.) are regularly conducted.237. An agricultural cell has been set up in the SSPA which assists the grievances redressal machinery in resolvingthe problem relating to the agricultural land. The salient features of this cell are as follows:• The agriculture cell is involved in purchasing land, supervision of land improvement works and processingland related grievances of the PAFs.• Agriculture training classes are organised for PAFs in the training institutes of the state government.• Assistance is given for availing crop-loan credit for banks and extension education is imparted in matters ofmarketing, cropping pattern, use of improved seeds, insecticides and latest equipments.49

• Afforestation was carried out in 33 R&R sites during 1999-2000 by planting 3,500 saplings which are protectedby bamboo tree-guards. Plantation is done along the roadside, common plots, school premises etc. In theremaining sites plantation work is undertaken by NGOs.238. At the instance of the GRA an educational cell has been set in the SSPA. The main function of which is toimprove the quality of education imparted and to improve the school enrolment. The salient features of this cellare as under.• School enrolment which was 4,110 in 1998-99, increased to 4670 in 1999-2000. Out of the 4,670 studentsenrolled, 2,126 were girls (46.3 percent).• The number of schools is 170 and the number of teachers is 384. In the last academic year, 66 schools wereupgraded by increasing the number of classes.• SSPA is regularly sending the teachers for in-service training. So far 120 teachers have been imparted training.• Every year during the period of June to August, a special drive is taken to increase the school enrolment.• In the current year 150 adult education classes have been started in the R&R sites with the help of NGOs.• An advisory committee has been created to make recommendations on how to improve the education beingimparted. Members include faculty of M.S. University, officers of Education Department, Principal of TeacherTraining Centre.239. It is further averred in this affidavit that at the instance of the GRA, a large number of measures have beentaken to improve the organisational structure of SSPA so as to effectively meet the challenge of R&R and make theR&R staff accountable. The salient features of this are stated to be as follows:• A strategic policy decision has been taken to create three separate divisions in SSPA for rehabilitation,resettlement and planning. Each division is in charge of a senior level officer of the rank of Additional/JointCommissioner.• Staff strength in SSPA has been considerably augmented especially at the field level.• To review the structural and functional aspects of SSPA services of a management consultancy agency (M/sTCS) has been engaged and draft report has been received and is being examined.• A demographic survey is to be conducted to comprehensively document information regarding the PAPs withspecial reference to their family composition, marriage, births, deaths, life expectancy, literacy, customs,culture, social integration etc.• Staff is being trained to sensitise them especially with regard to rehabilitation and second generation issues.Senior level officers have been sent for R&R training at Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad.240. From the aforesaid affidavit it is more than clear that the GRA, of which Mr Justice P.D. Desai, is theChairman, has seen to the establishment of different cells and have taken innovative steps with a view to makingR&R effective and meaningful. The steps which are being taken and the assistance given is much more than whatis required under the Tribunal’s Award. There now seems to be a commitment on the part of the Government ofGujarat to see that there is no laxity in the R&R of the PAPs. It appears that the State of Gujarat has realised thatwithout effective R&R facilities no further construction of the dam would be permitted by the NCA and under theguidance and directions of the GRA meaningful steps are being undertaken in this behalf. In this connection wemay take note of the fact that along with the said affidavit Shri V.K. Babbar, again under the directions of theGRA, has given an undertaking to this Court, which reads as follows:1) As per this undertaking, inter alia, in respect of scattered pieces or parcels of lands in possession of the SSPAor R&R which do not add upto a contiguous block of 7 hectares by themselves or in conjunction with otherlands steps will be taken to purchase or acquire contiguous lands so that the said small pieces of land becomea part of continuous block of 6 hectares or more. This exercise will be undertaken and completed on or before31 December 2000. In case it is not possible to have a contiguous block of minimum of 6 hectares, further50

directions will be sought from GRA or such piece or parcel of land will be put to use for other publicpurposes relating to R&R but which may not have been provided for in the NWDT Award.2) Henceforth, the land which is acquired or purchased for R&R purposes shall be contiguous to each other soas to constitute a compact block of 6 hectares.3) Henceforth land to be purchased for R&R will be within a radius of 3 km from an existing or proposed newsite and if there is a departure from this policy prior approval of the GRA will be obtained.4) Demarcation of boundary of 5,211 hectares of land whose survey has been undertaken by the GRA andcarving out individual plots of 2 hectares for allotment to PAFs will be undertaken and completed on orbefore 31 December 2000.5) The other undertakings relate to soil testing and/or ensuring that suitable land is made available to the PAFsafter the quality of land is cleared by the agriculture experts of the Gujarat Agriculture University. Withregard to the lands in possession of the SSPA which are low lying and vulnerable to water logging duringmonsoon, an undertaking has been given that the land has been deleted from the inventory of lands availablefor R&R unless such lands are examined by the agriculture cell of SSPA and it is certified that the access tothese lands is clear and unimpeded and that they are suitable for R&R. Compliance report in this regard is tobe submitted to the GRA on or before 31 December 2000.241. In addition to the aforesaid undertaking of Shri V.K. Babbar, undertakings of the Collectors of Khedr, Vadodara,Ahmedabad, Narmada, Panchmahal and Bharuch districts have also been filed. Apart from reiterating what iscontained in the undertaking of Shri V.K. Babbar, in these undertakings of the collectors, it is stated that necessarymutation entries regarding entering the name of SSPA/SSNNL in the village records of right in respect of the landin possession of R&R or PAFs likely to be resettled in Gujarat have been made but the certification of these entrieswill be completed and matter reported to the GRA before 31 August 2000. If this is not done the land is to bedeleted from the inventory of land available for R&R. Necessary mutation entries in the village records or rightsregarding removal of encumbrances of original landholders shall also be completed by that date.242. From what is noticed hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that more than adequate steps are being taken by theState of Gujarat not only to implement the Award of the Tribunal to the extent it grants relief to the oustees but theeffort is to substantially improve thereon and, therefore, continued monitoring by this Court may not be necessary.243. On behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, response to this Court’s order dated 9 May 2000, an affidavit of ShriH.N. Tiwari, Director (TW), Narmada Valley Development Authority has been filed. It is stated therein that with aview to arrange resettlement of the PAFs to be affected at different levels detailed instructions to the field officers ofthe submergence area were issued by Shri Tiwari vide letter dated 20 May 2000 in respect of all the aspects ofresettlement of the PAFs. This is related to identification of land, processing of land acquisition cases and passing ofthe Award, taking of PAFs to Gujarat for selection of land, allotment of land to the PAFs who decide to remain inMadhya Pradesh and development of sites. There are 92 sites for resettlement of the PAFs which are required to beestablished and out of these 18 are stated to be fully developed, development in 23 sites is in process, 18 sites aresuch where location has been determined and land identified but development work has not started and 33 sites aresuch where location of land for the development is to be decided by the task force constituted for this purpose.244. Dealing specifically with the status of PAFs to be affected at different levels this affidavit, inter alia, statesthat with regard to PAFs to be affected at EL 85 m those of whom who have opted to go to Gujarat, land has beenoffered to them by the Government of Gujarat, those PAFs who have changed their mind and now want to remainin Madhya Pradesh land is being shown to them in Madhya Pradesh.245. It has not been categorically stated whether the PAFs who are so affected have been properly resettled or not.On the contrary, it is stated that no Awards in land acquisition cases have been passed in respect of six villages andit is only after the Awards are passed that house plots will be allotted and compensation paid. The provision offinancial assistance for purchase of productive assets will be released when PAFs shift and start construction of thehouses. The reason for not making the payment in advance rightly is that if the grants are paid to the oustees beforethey shift they may possibly squander the grant and the State Government may be required to pay again to establishthem on some self employment venture. For the resettlement of PAFs in Madhya Pradesh out of ten relocation sitesmentioned in the affidavit only five have been fully developed. It is also stated that 163 PAFs are resisting fromshifting to Gujarat under the influence of anti dam activists, though they have been given notices containing offer of51

the land and house plots by the Government of Gujarat. In addition thereto 323 PAFs who were earlier resisting havenow been persuaded and arrangements for selection of land for them in Gujarat has been initiated.246. With regard to the R&R status of PAFs to be affected at EL 95 m, it is, inter alia, stated that those losing 25percent of their holdings are entitled to be allotted cultivable land and notices were given to them to identify theland which can be allotted. In the said notice it was stated that the development process will be undertaken withregard to the said land only after it is selected by the PAFs. There is also a mention in the affidavit filed in the nameof Narmada Bachao Andolan, the petitioner herein, not allowing the state government to conduct survey fordemarcation of the submergence area and identification of the PAFs to be affected at EL 132.86 m (436 ft). Six outof twenty five relocation sites required to be developed have been fully developed.247. Affidavit on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh draws a picture of rehabilitation which is quite differentfrom that of Gujarat. There seems to be no hurry in taking steps to effectively rehabilitate Madhya Pradesh PAFsin their home State. It is indeed surprising that even awards in respect of six villages out of 33 villages likely to beaffected at 90 m dam height have not been passed. The impression which one gets after reading the affidavit onbehalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh clearly is that the main effort of the said State is to try and convince thePAFs that they should go to Gujarat whose rehabilitation package and effort is far superior to that of the State ofMadhya Pradesh. It is, therefore, not surprising that vast majority of the PAFs of Madhya Pradesh have opted to beresettled in Gujarat but that does not by itself absolve the State of Madhya Pradesh of its responsibility to takeprompt steps so as to comply at least with the provisions of the Tribunal’s Award relating to relief and rehabilitation.The State of Madhya Pradesh has been contending that the height of the dam should be lowered to 436 ft so thatlesser number of people are dislocated but we find that even with regard to the rehabilitation of the oustees at 436ft the R&R programme of the State is nowhere implemented. The state is under an obligation to effectively resettlethose oustees whose choice is not to go to Gujarat. Appropriate directions may, therefore, have to be given toensure that the speed in implementing the R&R picks up. Even the interim report of Mr Justice Soni, the GRA forthe State of Madhya Pradesh, indicates lack of commitment on the state’s part in looking to the welfare of its ownpeople who are going to be under the threat of ouster and who have to be rehabilitated. Perhaps the lack of urgencycould be because of lack of resources, but then the rehabilitation even in Madhya Pradesh is to be at the expenseof Gujarat. A more likely reason could be that, apart from electricity, the main benefit of the construction of thedam is to be of Gujarat and to a lessor extent to Maharashtra and Rajasthan. In a federal set up like India wheneverany such inter-state project is approved and work undertaken the states involved have a responsibility to cooperatewith each other. There is a method of settling the differences which may arise amongst the like, for example, in thecase of inter-state water dispute the reference of the same to a tribunal. The award of the tribunal being binding,the states concerned are duty bound to comply with the terms thereof.248. On behalf of the State of Maharashtra affidavit in response to this Court’s order dated 9 May 2000, theposition regarding the availability of land for distribution to the PAFs was stated to be as follows:i) Total land available by the Forest Department 4,191.86 haii) Land which could not be allotted at present to PAFa) Gaothan land (used for residential purposes) 209.60 hab) Land occupied by river/nallah/hills 795.62 hac) Land under encroachment by third parties 434.13 haTherefore, the net land available at present for allotmentwas 4,191.86 (-) 1,439.35Total area of land allotted to 1,600 PAFsRemaining cultivable land available with theState 2,752 (-) 2,434.012,752.51 ha2,434.01 ha318.50 haIt is further stated in this affidavit that out of 795.62 ha of forest land which was reported to be uncultivable, theState has undertaken a survey for ascertaining whether any of these lands can be made available for cultivation anddistribution by resorting to measures like bunding, terracing and levelling. It is estimated that 30 to 40 hectares of52

land would become available. In addition thereto the affidavit states that the Government of Maharashtra hasdecided to purchase private land in nearby villages for resettlement of PAFs and further that GRA has beenestablished and Justice S.P. Kudukar, a retired judge of this Court has been appointed as its chairman. It iscategorically stated in this affidavit that the state government would be in a position to make these land availableto all the concerned project affected families.Conclusion249. Water is one element without which life cannot sustain. Therefore, it is to be regarded as one of the primaryduties of the government to ensure availability of water to the people.250. There are only three sources of water. They are rainfall, groundwater and from river. A river itself gets watereither by the melting of the snow or from the rainfall while the groundwater is again dependent on the rainfall orfrom the river. In most parts of India, rainfall takes place during a period of about 3 to 4 months known as themonsoon season. Even at the time when the monsoon is regarded as normal, the amount of rainfall varies fromregion to region. For example, North-Eastern States of India receive much more rainfall than some of other stateslike Punjab, Haryana or Rajasthan. Dams are constructed not only to provide water whenever required but theyalso help in flood control by storing extra water. Excess of rainfall causes floods while deficiency thereof resultsin drought. Studies show that 75 percent of the monsoon water drains into the sea after flooding a large land areadue to the absence of storage capacity. According to a study conducted by the Central Water Commission in 1998,surface water resources were estimated at 1,869 cu. km and rechargable groundwater resources at 432 cu. km. It isbelieved that only 690 cu. km of surface water resources (out of 1,869 cu. km) can be utilised by storage. Atpresent the storage capacity of all dams in India is 174 cu. km which is incidentally less than the capacity of KaribaDam in Zambia/Zimbabwe (180.6 cu. km) and only 12 cu. km more than Aswan high dam of Egypt.251. While the reservoir of a dam stores water and is usually situated at a place where it can receive a lot ofrainfall, the canals take water from this reservoir to distant places where water is a scare commodity. It was, ofcourse, contended on behalf of the petitioner that if the practice of water harvesting is restored to and some checkdams are constructed, there would really be no need for a high dam like Sardar Sarovar. The answer to this givenby the respondent is that water harvesting serves a useful purpose but it cannot ensure adequate supply to meet allthe requirements of the people. Water harvesting means to collect, preserve and use the rain water. The problem ofthe area in question is that there is deficient rainfall and small water harvesting projects may not be adequate.During the non-rainy days, one of the essential ingredients of water harvesting is the storing of water. It will not bewrong to say that the biggest dams to the smallest percolating tanks meant to tap the rainwater are nothing butwater harvesting structures to function by receiving water from the common rainfall.252. A dam serves a number of purposes. It stores water, generates electricity and releases water throughout theyear and at times of scarcity. Its storage capacity is meant to control floods and the canal system which emanatestherefrom is meant to convey and provide water for drinking, agriculture and industry. In addition thereto, it canalso be a source of generating hydro-power. Dam has, therefore, necessarily to be regarded as an infrastructuralproject.253. There are three stages with regard to the undertaking of an infrastructural project. One is conception orplanning, second is decision to under take the project and the third is the execution of the project. The conceptionand the decision to undertake a project is to be regarded as a policy decision. While there is always a need for suchprojects not being unduly delayed, it is at the same time expected that as thorough a study as is possible will beundertaken before a decision is taken to start a project. Once such a considered decision is taken, the properexecution of the same should be taken expeditiously. It is for the government to decide how to do its job. When ithas put a system in place for the execution of a project and such a system cannot be said to be arbitrary, then theonly role which a court may have to play is to see that the system works in the manner it was envisaged.254. A project may be executed departmentally or by an outside agency. The choice has to be of the Government.When it undertakes the execution itself, with or without the help of another organisation, it will be expected toundertake the exercise according to some procedure and principles. The NCA was constituted to give effect to theAward, various sub-groups have been established under the NCA and to look after the grievances of the resettledoustees and each state has set up a grievance redressal machinery. Over and above the NCA is the Review Committee.There is no reason now to assume that these authorities will not function properly. In our opinion the courts shouldhave no role to play.53

255. It is now well settled that the courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field ofpolicy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertakenand how it has to be executed, are part of policy making process and the courts are ill equipped to adjudicate on apolicy decision so undertaken. The court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no lawis violated and people’s fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under theConstitution. Even then any challenge to such a policy decision must be before the execution of the project isundertaken. Any delay in the execution of the project means over-run in costs and the decision to undertake aproject, if challenged after its execution has commenced, should be thrown out at the very threshold on the groundof laches if the petitioner had the knowledge of such a decision and could have approached the Court at that time.Just because a petition is termed as a PIL does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will notapply. Laches is one of them.256. PIL was an innovation essentially to safeguard and protect the human rights of those people who were unableto protect themselves. With the passage of time the PIL jurisdiction has been ballooning so as to encompass withinits ambit subjects such as probity in public life, granting of largess in the form of licences, protecting the environmentand the like. But the balloon should not be inflated so much that it bursts. PIL should not be allowed to degenerateto becoming Publicity Interest Litigation or Private Inquisitiveness Litigation.257. While exercising jurisdiction in PIL cases, this Court has not forsaken its duty and role as a Court of lawdispensing justice in accordance with law. It is only where there has been a failure on the part of any authority inacting according to law or in non-action in violation of the law that the Court has stepped in. No directions areissued which are in conflict with any legal provisions. Directions have, in appropriate cases, been given where thelaw is silent and inaction would result in violation of the fundamental rights or other legal provisions.258. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken thatthe Court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is in our constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcationof powers. The Court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the Court’sjurisdiction.259. At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power, the Court should not be called upon or undertakegovernmental duties or functions. The courts cannot run the government nor the administration indulge in abuseor non-use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The roleof the higher judiciary under the constitution casts on it a great obligation as the sentinel to defend the values ofthe Constitution and rights of Indians. The courts must, therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitationsto uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has beenconsistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the Court will not interfere. When there is a valid lawrequiring the government to act in particular manner the Court ought not to, without striking down the law, giveany direction which is not in accordance with law. In other words the Court itself is not above the law.260. In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the government, the courts should not becomean approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the government after due care and consideration. Ina democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concernof a responsible government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any lawor is not mala fide, it will not be in the public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areaswhich are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation the Court shouldrefrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner, in filing a PIL, alleges that such adecision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which viewmay have been considered by the government, is possible. When two or more options or views are possible andafter considering them the Government takes a policy decision, it is then not the function of the Court to go intomatter afresh and, in a way sit, in appeal over such a policy decision.261. What the petitioner wants the Court to do in this case is precisely that. The facts enumerated hereinaboveclearly indicate that the Central Government had taken a decision to construct the dam as that was the onlysolution available to it for providing water to water-scarce areas. It was known at that time that people will bedisplaced and will have to be rehabilitated. There is no material to enable this Court to come to the conclusion thatthe decision was mala fide. A hard decision need not necessarily be a bad decision.54

262. Furthermore environment concern has not only to be of the area which is going to be submerged and itssurrounding area. The impact on environment should be seen in relation to the project as a whole. While an areaof land will submerge but the construction of the dam will result in multifold improvement in the environment ofthe areas where the canal waters will reach. Apart from bringing drinking water within easy reach, the supply ofwater to Rajasthan will also help in checking the advancement of the Thar Desert. Human habitation will increasethere which, in turn, will help in protecting the so far porous border with Pakistan.263. While considering Gujarat’s demand for water, the government had reports that with the construction of ahigh dam on the river Narmada, water could not only be taken to the scarcity areas of northern Gujarat, Saurashtraand parts of Kachchh but some water could also be supplied to Rajasthan.264. Conflicting rights had to be considered. If for one set of people namely those of Gujarat, there was only onesolution, namely, construction of a dam, the same would have an adverse effect on another set of people whosehouses and agricultural land would be submerged in water. It is because of this conflicting interest that considerabletime was taken before the project was finally cleared in 1987. Perhaps the need for giving the green signal was thatwhile for the people of Gujarat, there was no other solution but to provide them with water from Narmada, thehardships of oustees from Madhya Pradesh could be mitigated by providing them with alternative lands, sites andcompensation. In the governance of the state, such decisions have to be taken where there are conflicting interests.When a decision is taken by the government after due consideration and full application of mind, the Court is notto sit in appeal over such decision.265. Since long the people of India have been deriving the benefits of river valley projects. At the time ofindependence, foodgrain was being imported into India but with the passage of time and the construction of moredams, the position has been reversed. The large-scale river valley projects per se all over the country have madeIndia more than self-sufficient in food. Famines which used to occur have now become a thing of the past.Considering the benefits which have been reaped by the people all over India with the construction of the dams,the government cannot be faulted with deciding to construct the high dam on the river Narmada with a view toprovide water not only to the scarcity areas of Gujarat but also to the small areas of the State of Rajasthan wherethe shortage of water has been there since the time immemorial.266. In the case of projects of national importance where Union of India and/or more than one state(s) are involvedand the project would benefit a large section of the society and there is evidence to show that the said project hadbeen contemplated and considered over a period of time at the highest level of the states and the Union of Indiaand more so when the project is evaluated and approval granted by the Planning Commission, then there should beno occasion for any court carrying out any review of the same or directing its review by any outside or ‘independent’agency or body. In a democratic set up, it is for the elected government to decide what project should be undertakenfor the benefit of the people. Once such a decision has been taken, unless and until it can be proved or shown thatthere is a blatant illegality in the undertaking of the project or in its execution, the Court ought not to interfere withthe execution of the project.267. Displacement of people living on the proposed project site and the areas to be submerged is an importantissue. Most of the hydrology projects are located in remote and inaccessible areas, where local population is, likein the present case, either illiterate or having marginal means of employment and the per capita income of thefamilies is low. It is a fact that people are displaced by projects from their ancestral homes. Displacement of thesepeople would undoubtedly disconnect them from their past, culture, custom and traditions, but then it becomesnecessary to harvest a river for larger good. A natural river is not only meant for the people close by but it shouldbe for the benefit of those who can make use of it, being away from it or near by. Realising the fact that displacementof these people would disconnect them from their past, culture, custom and traditions, the moment any village isearmarked for takeover for a dam or any other developmental activity, the project implementing authorities haveto implement R&R programmes. The R&R plans are required to be specially drafted and implemented to mitigateproblems whatsoever relating to all, whether rich or poor, land owner or encroacher, farmer or tenant, employee oremployer, tribal or non-tribal. A properly drafted R&R plan would improve living standards of displaced personsafter displacement. For example residents of villages around Bhakra Nangal Dam, Nagarjun Sagar Dam, Tehri,Bhilai Steel Plant, Bokaro and Bala Iron and Steel Plant and numerous other developmental sites are better offthan people living in villages in whose vicinity no development project came in. It is not fair that tribals and thepeople in undeveloped villages should continue in the same condition without ever enjoying the fruits of scienceand technology for better health and have a higher quality of life style. Should they not be encouraged to seekgreener pastures elsewhere, if they can have access to it, either through their own efforts due to information55

exchange or due to outside compulsions. It is with this object in view that the R&R plans which are developed aremeant to ensure that those who move must be better off in the new locations at government cost. In the presentcase, the R&R packages of the states, specially of Gujarat, are such that the living conditions of the oustees will bemuch better than what they had in their tribal hamlets.268. Loss of forest because of any activity is undoubtedly harmful. Without going into the question as to whetherthe loss of forest due to river valley project because of submergence is negligible, compared to deforestation dueto other reasons like cutting of trees for fuel, it is true that large dams cause submergence leading to loss of forestareas. But it cannot be ignored and it is important to note that these large dams also cause conversion of waste landinto agricultural land and making the area greener. Large dams can also become instruments in improving theenvironment, as has been the case in western Rajasthan, which is transformed into a green area because of IndiraGandhi Canal, which draws water from Bhakra Nangal Dam. This project not only allows the farmers to growcrops in deserts but also checks the spread of Thar desert in adjoining areas of Punjab and Haryana.269. Environmental and ecological consideration must, of course, be given due consideration but with properchannellisation of developmental activities ecology and environment can be enhanced. For example, Periyar DamReservoir has become an elephant sanctuary with thick green forests all round while at the same time wiped outfamines that used to haunt the district of Madurai in Tamil Nadu before its construction. Similarly KrishnarajasagarDam which has turned Mandya district which was once covered with shrub forests with wild beasts into a prosperousone with green paddy and sugarcane fields all round.270. So far a number of such river valley projects have been undertaken in all parts of India. The petitioner has notbeen able to point out a single instance where the construction of a dam has, on the whole, had an adverseenvironmental impact. On the contrary the environment has improved. That being so there is no reason to suspectwith all the experience gained so far, that the position here will be any different and there will not be overallimprovement and prosperity. It should not be forgotten that poverty is regarded as one of the causes of degradationof environment. With improved irrigation system the people will prosper. The construction of Bhakra Dam is ashining example for all to see how the backward area of erstwhile undivided Punjab has now become the granaryof India with improved environment and what was there before the completion of the Bhakra Nangal project.271. The Award of the Tribunal is binding on the States concerned. The said Award also envisages the relief andrehabilitation measures which are to be undertaken. If for any reason, any of the state governments involved lagbehind in providing adequate relief and rehabilitation then the proper course, for a court to take, would be to directthe Award’s implementation and not to stop the execution of the project. This Court, as a Federal Court of thecountry specially in a case of inter-state river dispute where an award had been made, has to ensure that thebinding award is implemented. In this regard, the Court would have the jurisdiction to issue necessary directionsto the state which, though bound, chooses not to carry out its obligations under the Award. Just as an ordinarylitigant is bound by the decree, similarly a state is bound by the Award. Just as the execution of a decree can beordered, similarly, the implementation of the Award can be directed. If there is a shortfall in carrying out the R&Rmeasures, a time-bound direction can and should be given in order to ensure the implementation of the Award.Putting the project on hold is no solution. It only encourages a recalcitrant state to flout and not implement theaward with impunity. This certainly cannot be permitted. Nor is it desirable in the national interest that wherefundamental right to life of the people who continue to suffer due to shortage of water to such an extent that eventhe drinking water becomes scarce, non-cooperation of a state results in the stagnation of the project.272. The clamour for the early completion of the project and for the water to flow in the canal is not by Gujarat butis also raised by Rajasthan.273. As per Clause 3 of the final decision of the Tribunal published in the Gazette notification of India dated 12December 1979, the State of Rajasthan has been allocated 0.5 MAF of Narmada water in the national interest fromSardar Sarovar Dam. This was allocated to the State of Rajasthan to utilise the same for irrigation and drinkingpurposes in the arid and drought-prone areas of Jalore and Barmer districts of Rajasthan situated on the internationalborder with Pakistan, which have no other available source of water.274. Water is the basic need for the survival of the human beings and is part of right of life and human rights asenshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and can be served only by providing source of water wherethere is none. The Resolution of the UN in 1977 to which India is signatory, during the United Nations WaterConference resolved unanimously inter alia as under:56

All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have theright to access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs.275. Water is being made available by the State of Rajasthan through tankers to the civilians of these areas once infour days during summer season in quantity, which is just sufficient for their survival. The districts of Barmer andJalore are part of the Thar Desert and on account of scarcity of water the desert area is increasing every year. It isa matter of great concern that even after half a century of freedom, water is not available to all citizens even fortheir basic drinking necessity violating human right resolution of UNO and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Water in the rivers of India has great potentiality to change the miserable condition of the arid, drought-prone andborder areas of India.276. The availability of drinking water will benefit about 1.91 lakh of people residing in 124 villages in arid anddrought-prone border areas of Jalore and Barmer districts of Rajasthan who have no other source of water and aresuffering grave hardship.277. As already seen, the State of Madhya Pradesh is keen for the reduction of the dam’s height to 436 ft. Apartfrom Gujarat and Rajasthan the State of Maharashtra also is not agreeable to this. The only benefit from the projectwhich Rajasthan is to get is its share of hydel power from the project. The lowering of the height from 455 ft to 436ft will take away this benefit even though 9,399 hectares of its land will be submerged. With the reduction ofheight to 436 ft not only will there be loss of power generation but it would also render the generation of powerseasonal and not throughout the year.278. One of the indicators of the living standard of people is the per capita consumption of electricity. There is,however, perennial shortage of power in India, and, therefore, it is necessary that the generation increases. Theworld over, countries having rich water and river systems have effectively exploited these for hydel power generation.In India, the share of hydel power in the total power generated was as high as 50 percent in the year 1962-63 butthe share of hydel power started declining rapidly after 1980. There is more reliance now on thermal powerprojects. But these thermal power projects use fossil fuels, which are not only depleting fast but also contributetowards environmental pollution. Global warming due to the greenhouse effect has become a major cause ofconcern. One of the various factors responsible for this is the burning of fossil fuel in thermal power plants. Thereis, therefore, international concern for reduction of greenhouse gases which is shared by the World Bank resultingin the restriction of sanction of funds for thermal power projects. On the other hand, the hydel power’s contributionin the greenhouse effect is negligible and it can be termed ecology friendly. Not only this but the cost of generationof electricity in hydel projects is significantly less. The Award of the Tribunal has taken all these factors intoconsideration while determining the height of the dam at 455 ft. Giving the option of generating eco-friendlyelectricity and substituting it by thermal power may not, therefore, be the best option. Perhaps the setting up of athermal plant may not displace as many families as a hydel project may but at the same time the pollution causedby the thermal plant and the adverse effect on the neighbourhood could be far greater than the inconveniencecaused in shifting and rehabilitating the oustees of a reservoir.279. There is, and has been in the recent past, protests and agitations not only against hydel projects but alsoagainst the setting up of nuclear or thermal power plants. In each case reasons are put forth against the executionof the proposed project either as being dangerous (in case of nuclear) or causing pollution and ecological degradation(in the case of thermal) or rendering people homeless and possess adverse environment impacts as has beenargued in the present case. But then electricity has to be generated and one or more of these options exercised.What option to exercise, in our constitutional framework, is for the government to decide keeping various factorsin mind. In the present case, a considered decision has been taken and the Award made whereby a high dam havingan FRL of 455 ft with capability of developing hydel power to be constructed. In the facts and circumstancesenumerated hereinabove, even if this Court could go into the question, the decision so taken cannot be faulted.Directions280. While issuing directions and disposing of this case, two conditions have to be kept in mind, (i) the completionof project at the earliest and (ii) ensuring compliance with conditions on which clearance of the project was givenincluding completion of relief and rehabilitation work and taking of ameliorative and compensatory measures forenvironmental protection in compliance with the scheme framed by the government thereby protecting the rightsunder Article 21 of the Constitution. Keeping these principles, in view, we issue the following directions.57

1. Construction of the dam will continue as per the Award of the Tribunal.2. As the Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-group has cleared the construction up to 90 metres, the same can beundertaken immediately. Further raising of the height will be only pari passu with the implementation of therelief and rehabilitation and on the clearance by the Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-group. The Relief andRehabilitation Sub-group will give clearance of further construction after consulting the three GrievancesRedressal Authorities.3. The Environment Sub-group under the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of Indiawill consider and give, at each stage of the construction of the dam, environment clearance before furtherconstruction beyond 90 meters can be undertaken.4. The permission to raise the dam height beyond 90 meters will be given by the Narmada Control Authority,from time to time, after it obtains the above-mentioned clearances from the Relief and Rehabilitation Subgroupand Environment Sub-group.5. The reports of the Grievances Redressal Authorities, and of Madhya Pradesh in particular, shows that there isa considerable slackness in the work of the identification of land, acquisition of suitable land and the consequentsteps necessary to be taken to rehabilitate the project oustees. We direct the States of Madhya Pradesh,Maharashtra and Gujarat to implement the Award and give relief and rehabilitation to the oustees in terms ofthe packages offered by them and these States shall comply with any direction in this regard which is giveneither by the NCA or the Review Committee or the Grievances Redressal Authorities.6. Even though there has been substantial compliance with the conditions imposed under the environmentclearance the NCA and the Environment Sub-group will continue to monitor and ensure that all steps aretaken not only to protect but to restore and improve the environment.7. The NCA will within four weeks from today draw up an action plan in relation to further construction and therelief and rehabilitation work to be undertaken. Such an Action Plan will fix a time frame so as to ensurerelief and rehabilitation pari passu with the increase in the height of the dam. Each State shall abide by theterms of the action plan so prepared by the NCA and in the event of any dispute or difficulty arising,representation may be made to the Review Committee. However each State shall be bound to comply withthe directions of the NCA with regard to the acquisition of land for the purpose of relief and rehabilitation tothe extent and within the period specified by the NCA.8. The Review Committee shall meet whenever required to do so in the event of there being any unresolveddispute on an issue which is before the NCA. In any event the Review Committee shall meet at least once inthree months so as to oversee the progress of construction of the dam and implementation of the R&Rprogrammes. If for any reason serious differences in implementation of the Award arise and the same cannotbe resolved in the Review Committee, the Committee may refer the same to the Prime Minister whose decision,in respect thereof, shall be final and binding on all concerned.9. The Grievances Redressal Authorities will be at liberty, in case the need arises, to issue appropriate directionsto the respective States for due implementation of the R&R programmes and in case of non-implementationof its directions, the GRAs will be at liberty to approach the Review Committee for appropriate orders.10. Every endeavour shall be made to see that the project is completed as expeditiously as possible.281. This and connected petitions are disposed off in the aforesaid terms.58

MINORITY JUDGEMENT1. Bharucha, J. I have read the judgment proposed to be delivered by my learned brother, the Hon’ble Mr JusticeB.N. Kirpal. Respectfully, I regret my inability to agree therewith.2. I do not set out the facts here: they are detailed in brother Kirpal’s judgment.3. I take the view that the Sardar Sarovar Project does not require to be re-examined, having regard to its costeffectiveness or otherwise, and that the seismicity aspect of the project has been sufficiently examined and nofurther consideration thereof is called for. I do not accept the submission on behalf of the petitioner that thoseousted by reason of the canals emanating from the reservoir in the project must have the same relief and rehabilitationbenefits as those ousted on account of the reservoir itself; this is for the reason that the two fall in different classes.4. Having said this, I turn to the aspect of the environmental clearance of the project. The Planning Commissionaccorded provisional sanction to the project subject to the environmental clearance thereof being obtained. At therelevant time, the responsibility for giving environmental clearance lay with the Department of Environment inthe Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Union Government. The department had in January 1985 issuedGuidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment of River Valley Projects. The preface thereof stated thatenvironmental appraisal was an important responsibility assigned to the department. It involved the evaluation ofthe environmental implications of, and the incorporation of necessary safeguards in, activities having a bearing onenvironmental quality. While river valley projects were a basic necessity to a country whose economy was largelybased on agriculture, over the years the realisation had dawned that river valley projects had their due quota ofpositive and adverse impacts which had to be carefully assessed and balanced for achieving sustained benefits.Therefore, it had been decided in the late 70s that all river valley projects should be subjected to a rigorousassessment of their environmental impact so that necessary mitigative measures could be duly incorporated thereinat the inception stage. The Guidelines set out the procedure to be adopted for carrying out environmental impactassessments. In the chapter headed Relevance of Environmental Aspects for River Valley Development Projects,the Guidelines stated,Concern for environmental pollution is rather a recent phenomenon which has been triggered mainly by thebacklash effect of accelerated industrial growth in the developed countries. The two major criteria – the projectshould maximise economic returns and it should be technically feasible – are no longer considered adequate todecide the desirability or even the viability of the project. It is now widely recognised that the development effortmay frequently produce not only sought for benefits, but other – often unanticipated – undesirable consequencesas well which may nullify the socio-economic benefits for which the project is designed.After reference to the strong feelings that were often expressed in favour of measures that would provide theprovision of adequate food and shelter to the millions, the Guidelines stated:Such strong feelings are easy to understand in the context of the prevailing economic stagnation. It doesnot, however, follow that the arguments advanced are valid. The basic flaw in these arguments is thatthey presume incompatibility between environmental conservation and the development effort.Apart from some selected cases where the uniqueness of the natural resources, like wildlife, flora and geneticpool, which demanded exclusive earmarking of a given region for their specific use, the majority of cases did notcall for a choice between development projects and preservation of the natural environment; but in all cases therewas great need to consider the environmental aspects along with other feasibility considerations. It was imperativeto analyse whether the adoption of environmental measures was going to result in any short or long-term social oreconomic benefits. A careful study of the direct costs involved, which would be caused by the absence of59

environmental mitigative measures on river valley projects, was an eye opener. These included effects on health,plant genetic resources, aquatic resources, water-logging and salinity of irrigated soils, deforestation and soilconservation. During the planning and feasibility assessment stages, several factors had to be taken into account,including short and long-term impact on population and human settlements in the inundated and watershed areas,impact on flora and fauna (wildlife) in the vicinity, impact on wildlife, including birds, impact on national parksand sanctuaries, on sites and monuments of historical, cultural and religious significance and on forests, agriculture,fisheries and recreation and tourism. Requisite date for impact assessment was not readily available, this beingrelatively a new discipline, and it had to be generated through such field surveys as:• Pre-impoundment census of flora & fauna, particularly the rare & endangered species, in submergence areas;• Census of animal population and available grazing areas;• Land-use pattern in the area with details of extent & type of forest;• Pre-impoundment survey of fish habitat and nutrients levels;• Groundwater level, its quality, and existing water use pattern;• Mineral resources, including injurious minerals, in the impoundment;• Living conditions of affected tribals/aboriginals etc.The cost of proposed remedial and mitigative measures to protect the environment had to be included in theproject cost. Mitigative measures included, among other things, compensatory afforestation. Only when theincorporation of environmental aspects in the project planning was made a part and parcel of all river valleyprojects would there be hope to protect and preserveour natural environment and fulfil the objective of rapid economic development on the sustained basiswhile safeguarding the natural resources including the air, water, land, flora and fauna for the benefit ofpresent and future generations.The necessary data that was required to be collected for impact assessment was set out in the Guidelines. A chartof the impact assessment procedure was also contained in the Guidelines.5. It appears that, though it ought rightly to have been taken by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, thedecision whether or not to accord environmental clearance to the project was left to the Prime Minister.6. A Note was prepared by the Ministry of Water Resources in or about October 1986 on the environmental aspectsof the Sardar Sarovar and the Narmada Sagar Multi Purpose Projects. It stated that a decision on the clearance ofthese projects from the environmental angle and under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 had become a matter ofurgency. Delays had occurred which had necessitated a recasting of the schedule. The Ministry of Environmentand Forests had been doing its best to expedite the process of examination and clearance ‘but have been findingthe material submitted inadequate and unsatisfactory’. While the state governments had done their best to meet therequirements, ‘some of the information and action will necessarily take time and will have to proceed pari passuwith the implementation of the project, which in any case will take a decade or more to complete’. The Note statedthat the Ministry of Water Resources shared the concerns and anxieties of the Ministry of Environment andForests, as also the sense of urgency of the Governments of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, who felt that it wasurgently necessary to take a decision in regard to the clearance. Under the sub-heading, ‘Should the projects betaken up at all?’, the Note stated that the abandonment of the projects would mean the abandonment of thegeneration of 2,450 MW of power and of the possibilities of economic development which that quantum of powerwould bring, as also increased agricultural production resulting from the creation of an irrigation potential of2.041 million hectares. No effective alternatives to the two projects were available. Reference to the adverseenvironmental impact of the projects carried the implicit assumption that if the projects were not sanctioned thestatus quo would remain and there would be no deterioration of the environment. Such an assumption was notwarranted. Despite the submergence of land and displacement of people and livestock, there was no case for theabandonment of the projects. What needed to be done was to take appropriate and adequate counter measures tooff-set the environmental impact of the projects. In respect of the flora and fauna, it said ‘Quantified data not yetavailable’. In respect of the possibility of soil erosion from the catchment leading to excessive siltation of the60

eservoir it said, ‘Extent of critically degraded area needing treatment to be identified’. Specifically in respect ofthe Sardar Sarovar Project, the Note said that for the area to be submerged in Maharashtra, the MaharashtraGovernment had proposed compensatory afforestation over an area of 6,490 hectares and the Madhya Pradeshwas preparing an action plan to reforest about 5,500 hectares of the denuded forest in the impact area. In respectof fauna, the Note said that the Narmada Sagar Project authorities had commissioned a wildlife census of the areasby the Zoological Survey of India and were negotiating terms with the Indian Institute of Wildlife Management,Dehradun, for carrying out detailed wildlife studies for relocation purposes. They proposed to undertake all necessarysteps to minimise the adverse impact of the project on wildlife. Gujarat and Maharashtra were also taking similaraction with the help of specialised agencies. In respect of the projects’ flora, the Note said that the first preliminarysurvey in the area by the Botanical Survey of India was started in December 1985 and it was estimated that thesurvey would take two to three years to be completed. In respect of catchment area treatment, the Note said thatfield surveys were likely to be started shortly. The project authorities had identified three representative pilotproject areas. The biological and engineering measures to be adopted in the treatment of the balance of the catchmentarea would be designed on the basis of the experience to be gained from these pilot projects. Under the subheading,‘What still remains to be done’, the Note stated, ‘While some plans have been made, studies undertaken and action initiated, it will be clear from thepreceding paragraphs that much still remains to be done. Indeed, it is the view of the Ministry ofEnvironment, Forests and Wildlife that what has been done so far whether by way of action or by wayof studies does not amount to much, and that many matters are as yet in the early and preliminarystages (emphasis supplied).What was then set out was an enumeration of what remained to be done. The survey of flora, to assess if there wereany rare or threatened plant species, had been assigned to the Botanical Survey of India, which was expected to becompleted in a period of two years. The Wildlife survey undertaken by the Zoological Survey of India was alsolikely to take two years. The Indian Institute of Wildlife Management, Dehradun was to consider and assess theimpact on wildlife of the destruction of their habitat, and to prepare a project report for their re-location. After allthese reports became available, a master plan had to be prepared. Field surveys for the identification of thecritically eroding areas was necessary and would take three years. The results from pilot studies would be availableonly after three years. Then, under the sub-heading, ‘Options in regard to the clearance of the projects’, the Notestated:There are two options:1. As a number of studies, census, field surveys, mapping of areas, etc., are likely to take between 2and 3 years, one possibility is that all these should be completed; detailed operational plans forcatchment treatment, compensatory afforestation, rehabilitation and resettlement of affectedpopulation, and remedial or relocation measures for planned species, wildlife, etc., formulated; theresponsibility for their implementation clearly identified; and then the projects should be given aclearance from the environmental and forest angles. This will mean a postponement of the clearanceof projects by about 3 years.2. The other option is that the projects should be given the necessary clearance now, with clearconditions and stipulations in regard to the actions to be taken on the various environmental aspectsand appropriate monitoring arrangements to ensure that the actions are taken in time-bound manner.13.2 The arguments against a postponement of clearance by three years are very strong (emphasis supplied)The postponement of the decision at this stage seemed, to the writers of the Note, ‘scarcely conceivable’. Apostponement would lead to substantial increases in project costs and the benefits expected from the projectswould be delayed. Also the work that had already been done would be rendered infructuous. The deferment ofclearance by three years would put the organisational set-up that had been built up into a state of uncertainty,retard the momentum that had been gathered, and sap the organisational morale and motivation. The Note added,Finally, the numerous studies, surveys, data collection exercises, plans for remedial measures, etc.,which have been enumerated earlier would involve time, money and organisational commitment. Withthe project decision postponed for three years, and with no assurance that at the end of that period, thedecision will be positive, it is difficult to believe that all these studies, surveys and plans relating to the61

environmental aspects will be pursued with energy and enthusiasm, and the necessary resources devotedto them. In other words, the postponement of the decision in the interest of collecting the informationrelating to the environment aspects and completing the formulation of the necessary operational plans,may in fact prove to be self defeating exercise. On the other hand, if the project decisions are taken now,subject to firm conditions and stipulations regarding the environmental aspects, there is greater likelihoodof these conditions being met (…). A possible argument against the immediate clearance of the projectscould be that once the projects are cleared, the management would concentrate on the engineering andconstruction aspects and would not pay adequate attention to the environmental and human aspects.There seems to be no need for such apprehensions. It should be entirely possible to give a conditionalclearance and ensure that the conditions are properly met through a process of clear assignment ofresponsibility and frequent monitoring (...). Moreover, even assuming that the postponement of a decisionby three years will improve the availability of detailed information and the state of preparedness onenvironmental matters, there can be no greater assurance at that stage than there is now regarding thewhole-hearted and effective implementation of the remedial and ameliorative measures. We would stillhave to depend on proper monitoring.In conclusion, the Note urged that clearance from the environmental angle and under the Forest Conservation Act,1980 be given immediately, subject to conditions and stipulations relating to the various environmental and relatedaspects outlined in the Note.7. Another Note was prepared by the Ministry of Water Resources and forwarded to the Additional Secretary to thePrime Minister on 20 November 1986. Insofar as catchment area treatment was concerned, it concluded that it wascertain that the catchment area treatment programme could not be realistically formulated and assessed for at leastanother three years. Therefore, it was premature to comment on the efficacy or otherwise of the catchment areatreatment programme which was still to be formulated. The action programme for command area developmentwas yet to be made available. The lining of the canal network and the digging of tubewells in the command couldnot be considered to be adequate. A lot of fieldwork and planning was needed to be done to arrive at a workableand effective command area development programme. As to compensatory afforestation, the land for the same wasyet to be identified and procured before it could be evaluated for the purpose. In regard to the loss of flora andfauna, the following studies were considered absolutely essential to determine the adequacy or otherwise of theleft over habitat to sustain wildlife:‘A wildlife census of the area’ (ZSI will take at least 2-3 years to complete the survey);1. Preparation of a Master Plan showing all protected areas, national parks, wildlife reserves, reserveand protected forests, etc. on which should be superimposed the area to be taken up for variousreservoirs, roads, canals, settlement colonies, etc.2. Study of the carrying capacity of the surrounding areas where the wildlife from the submergencearea will disperse.In the circumstances, it was not considered possible to assess the impact of the loss of habitat on the wildlife andthe overall loss of biological diversity. The absence and inadequacy of data on the following environmental aspectspersisted:1. Rehabilitation;2. Catchment area treatment;3. Command area development;4. Compensatory afforestation; and5. Flora and fauna.Considering the magnitude of rehabilitation, involving a large percentage of tribals, loss of extensive forest arearich in biological diversity, enormous environmental cost of the project and considering the fact that the basicdata on vital aspects was still not available ‘there could be but one conclusion, that the project(s) are not readyfor approval’. ‘There were two options in regard to the clearance. As a number of studies, censuses, field surveys,62

mapping of areas etc. was likely to take between two and three years, one possibility was that all these should becompleted; detailed operational plans for catchment treatment, compensatory afforestation, rehabilitation andresettlement of affected population and remedial or relocation measures for plant species, wildlife, etc. formulated;the responsibility for their implementation clearly identified; and then the projects should be given clearance fromthe environmental and forest angles. This would mean postponement of the clearance of projects by about threeyears’. The other option was that the project should be given the necessary clearance with conditions and stipulationsin regard to the actions to be taken on the various environmental aspects with appropriate monetary arrangements.The Note recommended the latter option (emphasis supplied).8. On 19 December 1986, the Ministry of Environment and Forests sent to the Secretary to the Prime Minister aNote on the environmental aspects of the Narmada Sagar and the Sardar Sarovar Projects. The Note stated that itcovered the major environmental issues which included the rehabilitation of the affected population, catchmentarea treatment, command area development, compensatory afforestation, and the loss of flora and fauna. It explainedthe then status of each of these aspects in terms of availability of data and plans and the readiness to execute them.It said that other components of the environmental aspects like the higher incidence of water borne diseases andloss of mineral reserves were important but were not dealt with in detail in the note. It stated that in respect ofcatchment area treatment, the requirement was of demarcation of critically degraded areas on the basis of aerialphotographs, satellite imagery and ground checks; creation of a chain of nurseries of suitable species for biologicaltreatment of the catchment area; and preparation of phased action programme for biological and engineeringtreatment of the degraded catchment area. Considering that catchment area treatment on an intensive scale wasimperative, both to reduce silt load and to maintain ecological balance, and keeping in view the fact that theinterpretation of the aerial photographs and satellite imagery would take at least one year for completion, to befollowed by ground truth checks; the detailed land and soil surveys would take three years to be completed; thegeo-morphological studies to suggest the engineering and biological treatment for the eroded areas were still to betaken up and the chain of nurseries needed to provide the necessary saplings in adequate quantity along withmanpower and other infrastructure requirements were still to be mobilised, it was ‘reasonable to conclude that thecatchment area treatment programme can be realistically formulated only after three years when these data becomeavailable’. Command area development was to achieve the prevention of waterlogging and salinity, the optimisationof water utilisation and the maintenance of water quality. A detailed survey of the command area was required onpriority to prepare a package of the nature and quantity of development and drainage and on farm works to fullyutilise the irrigation potential. An action programme was yet to be detailed. The Ministry of Water Resources waspreparing an evaluation report covering the extent of likely water-logging and salinity problems and the effectivenessof measures proposed or likely to be proposed to combat these problems ‘as per the action programme to beformulated’. In so far as compensatory afforestation was concerned, the project authorities had not been able toidentify non-forest land for compensatory afforestation and had proposed to undertake afforestation on double theextent for degraded forest land, which proposal was fairly detailed and seemed satisfactory. In the matter of loss offlora and fauna the Note stated that[t]he forest area specially affected by the Narmada Sagar Project represents areas harbouring rich heritageof genetic resources as well as wildlife. The preliminary study carried out by the Environmental Planningand Coordination Organisation, Bhopal as well as the observations made by the World Bank clearlyunderline the need for preparing a master plan showing not just the present status but also the likelyscenario after the project is implemented. The prime concern is to ascertain the loss of biological diversityand whether the wildlife will be able to sustain itself after the destruction of its habitat specially on theSouthern side which is surrounded by agriculture fields. The following studies were considered absolutelyessential to determine the loss of flora and the adequacy or otherwise of the left-over habitat to sustainthe wildlife:• A wildlife census of the area (ZSI will take at least 2-3 years to complete the survey);• Preparation of a master plan showing all protected areas i.e. national parks, wildlife reserves, reserveand protected forests, etc. on which should be superimposed the areas cannot be taken up forvarious reservoirs, roads, canals, settlement colonies, etc;• Study of the carrying capacity of the surrounding areas where the wildlife from the submergencearea will disperse.63

These studies are considered specially important in the case of NSP. The work initiated by the BotanicalSurvey of India and ZSI at the request of the project authorities will be completed only by 1989. Theother studies have not been initiated. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to assess the impact ofthe loss of habitat on the wildlife and the overall loss of biological diversity and genetic reserves.Even if one were to assume that the forests to be destroyed do not contain genetic resources, which inany case cannot be valued, the simple loss of these forests would have an environmental cost estimatedat several thousand crores of rupees as per norms developed by the FRL. The environmental cost is thuscolossal.The Note concluded:1. Taking note of the fact that the project formulation has been in progress for more than three decadesand the active interaction of the project authorities with the Department of Environment has beengoing on for almost three years, the absence and inadequacy of data on important environmentalaspects still persists.2. In an objective sense, the NSP is not ready for clearance from the environmental angle. Eventhough SSP is in a fairly advanced stage of preparedness, it is neither desirable nor recommendedthat the SSP should be given approval in isolation on technical and other grounds.3. The state of readiness in the case of NSP is such that it gives just an outline of the intention plan.The fact that this intention plan will be converted to an action plan and thereby effectivelyimplemented has to be taken on trust. In case of Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP), readiness to executeis reasonably good except on the issue of rehabilitation of oustees specially from MP and Maharashtra.4. Holding up of the projects even for the next few months is not likely to improve the level ofpreparedness on most of the environmental aspects, specially in the case of NSP. In the meanwhile,further studies will not perhaps pick up speed and thus at no time will the requisite information befully available.5. A large amount of money has already been invested in SSP which is critically linked – on technicaland operational aspects – to NSP. However, it may not be too late even now to modify some of theparameters of NSP and SSP to minimise environmental damage while at the same time ensuringoptimal utilisation of water resources.(…)The choice is difficult but a choice has to be made (emphasis supplied).9. A Note was prepared on 15 January 1987, in the Prime Minister’s Office. It noted that the main issues onenvironmental concerns were the rehabilitation of the affected population, compensatory afforestation, treatmentof the catchment area and command area development, pertaining, particularly, to drainage, water logging andsalinity. The Department of Environment and Forests had raised the point that the rehabilitation plan was notready, land had not been surveyed, areas of land use capability and water availability had not been identified andthe land being suggested for rehabilitation, prima facie, appeared to be infertile. Detailed meetings with the StateGovernments revealed that they were seriously undertaking surveys, land identification and preparation of arehabilitation plan, of which the first phase was more or less ready. The catchment area treatment preparationwould take time. A compensatory afforestation programme could be chalked out without difficulty. The issue waswhether detailed plans should be made fully ready before giving environmental clearance or whether there couldbe a conditional clearance so that the project could start. The Secretary to the Prime Minister had discussed thematter with the Secretary, Water Resources and the Secretary, Environment and Forests and it had been agreed thatclearance might be given on the following conditions:Preparation in due time of detailed and satisfactory plans for rehabilitation, catchment area treatment,compensatory afforestation and command area development.Setting up of Narmada Management Authority with adequate powers and teeth to ensure that environmentalmanagement plans are implemented pari passu with engineering and other works.64

Below the aforesaid Note, the Secretary to the Prime Minister sought his approval to conditional clearance of theproject from the environmental angle. The project, she said, had been pending clearance for seven years and theChief Ministers of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh were keenly awaiting it. The Chief Minister of Gujarat hadrequested a ‘green signal’ before 20 January 1987.10. On 19 January 1987, the Prime Minister made a handwritten endorsement on the aforesaid Note, ‘Perhaps thisis a good time to try for a River Valley Authority, Discuss’. But it appears that a River Valley Authority was notfound feasible and the sanction to the project from the environmental angle was issued by the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests on 24 June 1987.11. The environmental sanction to the project reads thus:12. Even in 1987, when the environmental clearance to the project was given, it had been found necessary by theUnion of India to rigorously assess the environmental impact of river valley projects. This was to determinewhether the uniqueness of the natural resources, like wildlife, flora and fauna and the genetic pool in the region,demanded its exclusive earmarking for that purpose, in which event the river valley project would not be accordedclearance. Even otherwise, it was imperative to consider the project’s environmental aspects, such as its effect onhealth, plant genetic resources, aquatic resources, water-logging and salinity of irrigated soils, deforestation andsoil conservation. Its short and long-term impact on population, on flora and fauna, on wildlife, on national parksand sanctuaries, on historical, cultural and religious monuments, on forests, agriculture, fisheries and recreationand tourism had to be taken into account. Field surveys were necessary for generating the requisite data for theimpact assessment. The cost of the proposed remedial and mitigated measures had to be included in the projectcost. The necessary data that was required to be collected for the purposes of the assessment of a project’senvironmental impact was set out in Guidelines for the purpose issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forestsof the Union Government (which have been referred to above).13. The contemporaneous notes prepared by the Ministry of Water Resources and the Ministry of Environmentand Forests, also referred to above, leave no manner of doubt that the requisite data for assessment of theenvironmental impact of the project was not available when the environmental clearance thereof was granted. Inthe words of one of the Notes, ‘While some plans have been made, studies undertaken and action initiated, it willbe clear from the preceding paragraphs that much still remains to be done. Indeed it is the view of the Ministry ofEnvironment, Forests and Wildlife that what has been done so far whether by way of action or by way of studiesdoes not amount to much and that many matters are yet in the early and preliminary stages’. The Notes make itclear that the studies, censuses, mapping of areas and field surveys for the collection of data for assessment of theenvironmental impact of the project were likely to take a further 2 to 3 years. An environmental clearance based onnext to no data in regard to the environmental impact of the project was contrary to the terms of the then policy ofthe Union of India in regard to environmental clearances and, therefore, no clearance at all.14. The environmental clearance of 24 June 1987 stated that details had been sought from the project authoritiesin respect of the rehabilitation master plan, phased catchment area treatment scheme, compensatory afforestationplan, Command area development, survey of flora and fauna, carrying capacity of surrounding area, seismicityand health aspects; field surveys had yet to be completed and complete details had been assured by 1989. Clearly,therefore, the necessary particulars in regard to the environmental impact of the project, as required by the Guidelines,were not available when the environmental clearance was given, and it, therefore, could not have been given.15. The conditions upon which the environmental clearance was given were that detailed surveys and studieswould be carried out and the Narmada Control Authority, whose terms of reference had been amplified, wouldensure that ‘environmental safeguard measures’ were planned and implemented pari passu with the progress ofwork on the project. No further assessment of the environmental impact of the project was contemplated by theenvironmental clearance, nor, indeed, was it ever carried out.16. What the environmental safeguards measures the Narmada Control Authority was to ensure were, and whattheir cost would be, was not known when the environmental clearance was given. There was, therefore, no way inwhich this cost could be included in the cost of the project, which was a requirement of the Guidelines.17. While environmental safeguard measures were to be planned and implemented pari passu with the progress ofthe work on the project, the catchment area treatment programme and the rehabilitation plans were required to be‘so drawn as to be completed ahead of reservoir filling’. This condition clearly required that before any water was65

impounded in the reservoir the catchment area treatment programme was not only to be drawn up but also to becompleted; so also the rehabilitation plans. If as the project authorities interpreted this clause, only the drawing ofthe catchment area treatment programme and the rehabilitation plans were to be completed ahead of reservoirfilling, the clause would have read: ‘The catchment area treatment programme and the rehabilitation plans shall bedrawn ahead of reservoir filling’. What the clause as drawn required was that the catchment area treatmentprogramme and the rehabilitation plans should be drawn in such a manner that the catchment area treatment andrehabilitation works would be completed ahead of impoundment in the reservoir. This, plainly, was intended tooffset, so far as was possible in the circumstances, the adverse effect of the impoundment of water in the reservoirupon the catchment and those who were required to be settled elsewhere. In fact, the impoundment began muchbefore.18. Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that most of the necessary surveys and studies had beencarried out in regard to the environmental impact of the project before the environmental clearance was given, andhe invited our attention to what had been done. The short answer to the submission on behalf of the Union of Indiais that the two concerned ministries of the Union of India thought otherwise at the relevant time. To quote the Noteof one ministry again: ‘While some plans have been made, studies undertaken and action initiated, it would beclear from the preceding paragraph that much still remains to be done. Indeed it is the view of the Ministry ofEnvironment, Forests and Wildlife that what has been done so far whether by way of action or by way of studiesdoes not amount to much and that many matters are yet in the early and preliminary stages’.19. The fact that the environmental clearance was given by the Prime Minister and not by the Ministry of Environmentand Forests, as it would ordinarily have been done, makes no difference at all. Under its own policy, as indicatedby the Guidelines, the Union of India was bound to give environmental clearance only after a) all the necessarydata in respect of the environmental impact of the project had been collected and assessed; b) the assessmentshowed that the project could proceed; and c) the environmental safeguard measures, and their cost, had beenworked out.20. An adverse impact on the environment can have disastrous consequences for this generation and generationsto come. This Court has in its judgments on Article 21 of the Constitution recognised this. This court cannot placeits seal of approval on so vast an undertaking as the project without first ensuring that those best fitted to do sohave had the opportunity of gathering all necessary data on the environmental impact of the project and of assessingit. They must then decide if environmental clearance to the project can be given, and, if it can, what environmentalsafeguard measures have to be adopted, and their cost. While surveys and studies on the environmental aspects ofthe project have been carried out subsequent to the environmental clearance, they are not, due to what areeuphemistically called ‘slippages’, complete. Those who now examine whether environmental clearance to theproject should be given must be free to commission or carry out such surveys and studies and the like as they deemnecessary. They must also, of course, consider such surveys and studies as have already been carried out. Giventhat the construction of the dam and other work on the project has already commenced, this factor must play a partin their deciding whether or not environmental clearance should be accorded. Until environmental clearance to theproject is accorded by them, further construction work on the dam shall cease.21. The Union of India has issued a notification on 27 January 1994 called the ‘Environmental Impact AssessmentNotification 1994’ (and amended on 4 May 1994). Its terms are not applicable to the present proceedings, but isprovisions are helpful in so far as they prescribe who is to assess the environmental impact assessment reports andenvironmental management plans that are submitted by applicants for new projects, including hydro-electric projects.The notification says, ‘The reports submitted with the application shall be evaluated and assessed by the ImpactAssessment Agency, and if deemed necessary, it may consult a Committee of Experts, having composition asspecified in Schedule-III of this notification. The Impact Assessment Agency (IAA) would be the Union Ministryof Environment and Forests. The Committee of Experts mentioned above shall be constituted by the IAA or suchother body under the Central Government authorised by the IAA in this regard’.Schedule III of the notification reads thus:‘Composition of the Expert Committees for Environmental Impact Assessment1. The Committees will consist of experts in the following disciplines:i. Eco-System Management66

ii. Air/Water Pollution Controliii. Water Resource Managementiv. Flora/Fauna Conservation and Managementv. Land Use Planningvi. Social Sciences/Rehabilitationvii. Project Appraisalviii. Ecologyix. Environmental healthx. Subject Area Specialistsxi. Representatives of NGOs/Persons concerned with Environmental Issues.2. The Chairman will be an outstanding and experienced ecologist or environmentalist or technical professionalwith wide managerial experience.3. The representative of IAA will act as Member-Secretary.4. Chairman and members will serve in their individual capacities, except those specifically nominated asrepresentatives.5. The membership of a Committee shall not exceed 15’.The Environmental Impact Agency of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests shall now appoint a committeeof experts composed of experts in the fields mentioned in Schedule III of the notification and that committee ofexperts shall assess the environmental impact of the project as stated above.When the writ petition was heard at the admission stage, this Court was most concerned about the distressing stateof the relief to and rehabilitation of those ousted on account of the project. The proper implementation of reliefand rehabilitation measures was the aim of the Court at that time, but it was not contemplated that the other issuesin the writ petition would not to be considered at the stage of its final hearing.23. The many interim orders that this Court made in the years in which this writ petition was pending show howvery little had been done in regard to the relief and rehabilitation of those ousted. It is by reason of the interimorders, and, in fairness, the co-operation and assistance of learned counsel who appeared for the States, that muchthat was wrong has now been redressed. The states have also been persuaded to set up Grievance RedressalAuthorities and it will be the responsibility of these authorities to ensure that those ousted by reason of the projectare given relief and rehabilitation in due course.24. The states are lagging behind in the matter of the identification and acquisition of land upon which the ousteesare to be resettled. Having regard to the experience of the past, only the Grievance Redressal Authorities can betrusted by this Court to ensure that the states are in possession of vacant lands suitable for the rehabilitation of theoustees. During the time that it takes to assess the environmental impact of the project, the states must take stepsto obtain, by acquisition or otherwise, vacant possession of suitable lands upon which the oustees can be rehabilitated.When the project obtains environmental clearance, assuming that it does, each of the Grievance Redressal Authoritiesof the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra must certify, after inspection, before work on thefurther construction of the dam can begin, that all those ousted by reason of the increase in the height of the damby 5 m from its present level have already been satisfactorily rehabilitated and also that suitable vacant land forrehabilitating all those who will be ousted by the increase in the height of dam by another 5 m is already in thepossession of the respective states; and this process must be repeated for every successive proposed 5 m increasein the dam height.25. Only by ensuring that relief and rehabilitation is so supervised by the Grievance Redressal Authorities can thisCourt be assured that the oustees will get their due.67

26. It is necessary to provide for the contingency that, for one or other reason, the work on the project, now or atany time in future, does not proceed and the project is not completed. Should that happen, all oustees who havebeen rehabilitated must have the option to continue to reside where they have been rehabilitated or to return towhere they were ousted from, provided such place remains habitable, and they must not be made at all liable inmonetary or other terms on this account.27. When the writ petition was filed the process of relief and rehabilitation, such as it was, was going on. The writpetitioners were not guilty of laches in that regard. In the writ petition they raised other issues, one among thembeing related to the environmental clearance of the project. Given what has been held in respect of environmentalclearance, when the public interest is so demonstrably involved, it would be against the public interest to declinerelief only on the ground that the Court was approached belatedly.28. I should not be deemed to have agreed to anything stated in Brother Kirpal’s judgment for the reason that Ihave not traversed it in the course of what I have stated.29. In the premises,1. The Environment Impact Agency of the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Union of India shallforthwith appoint a Committee of Experts in the fields mentioned in Schedule III of the notification dated 27January 1994, called the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 1994.2. The Committee of Experts shall gather all necessary data on the environmental impact of the project. Theyshall be free to commission or carry out such surveys and studies and the like as they deem necessary. Theyshall also consider such surveys and studies as have already been carried out.3. Upon such data, the Committee of Experts shall assess the environmental impact of the project and decide ifenvironmental clearance to the project can be given and, if it can, what environmental safeguard measuresmust be adopted, and their cost.4. In so doing, the Committee of Experts shall take into consideration the fact that the construction of the damand other work on the project has already commenced.5. Until environmental clearance to the project is accorded by the Committee of Experts as aforesaid, furtherconstruction work on the dam shall cease.6. The Grievance Redressal Authorities of the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall ensurethat those ousted by reason of the project are given relief and rehabilitation in due measure.7. When the project obtains environmental clearance, assuming that it does, each of the Grievance RedressalAuthorities of the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall, after inspection, certify, beforework on the further construction of the dam can begin, that all those ousted by reason of the increase in theheight of the dam by 5 metres from its present level have already been satisfactorily rehabilitated and also thatsuitable vacant land for rehabilitating all those who will be ousted by the increase in the height of the dam byanother 5 metres is already in the possession of the respective States.8. This process shall be repeated for every successive proposed 5-metre increase in the dam height.9. If for any reason the work on the project, now or at any time in the future, cannot proceed and the project isnot completed, all oustees who have been rehabilitated shall have the option to continue to reside where theyhave been rehabilitated or to return to where they were ousted from, provided such place remains habitable,and they shall not be made at all liable in monetary or other terms on this account.30. The writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms. The connected matters are disposed of in the sameterms.31. No order as to costs.68

www.ielrc.org

Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India - International ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?