Abstract

The Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 3751) case is a major judgment that illuminates the intricate nexus between economic growth, protection of the environment, and human rights in India. The controversy was triggered by the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River to supply water for irrigation, drinking water, and hydroelectric power to several states. Medha Patkar-led Narmada Bachao Andolan objected to the project on the basis that it was infringing on the basic rights of the displaced tribal and rural populations under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The NBA objected on the basis that there was no adequate environmental impact assessment of the project and that the rehabilitation of displaced families was insufficient. In a majority 2:1 verdict, the Supreme Court favored the government, upholding the continuing construction of the dam while directing rehabilitation and protection of the environment to be executed concurrently ("pari passu"). The ruling highlighted the centrality of large infrastructure projects in national development but underlined the necessity of balancing economic progress with environmental concerns and human rights protection. The judgment reinforced the limited role of the judiciary in making policy choices, upholding the separation of powers doctrine while holding the executive accountable to rehabilitation and environmental protection.

Keywords