TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court ruling on Sardar Sarovar Project highlights environmental clearance deficiencies and emphasizes relief & rehabilitation measures</h1> <h3>Narmada Bachao Andolan Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.</h3> Narmada Bachao Andolan Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - AIR 2000 SC 3751, 2000 (7) SCALE 34, (2000) 10 SCC 664, [2000] Supp 4 SCR 94 Issues Involved:1. Environmental Clearance2. Relief and Rehabilitation3. Seismicity4. Cost EffectivenessEnvironmental Clearance:The Supreme Court examined whether the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) had complied with environmental clearance norms. The Planning Commission had given provisional sanction subject to environmental clearance. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) issued guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in January 1985. The MoEF's guidelines emphasized the need for rigorous assessment of environmental impacts, including effects on health, flora, fauna, and socio-economic conditions. Despite the guidelines, the requisite data for assessing the environmental impact of the SSP was not available when clearance was granted in June 1987. The clearance was conditional upon the completion of detailed surveys and studies, which were not fully carried out. The Court noted that the environmental clearance was granted without adequate data, contrary to the Union of India's policy, and thus, no clearance at all.Relief and Rehabilitation:The Court scrutinized the relief and rehabilitation (R&R) measures for those ousted by the SSP. The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) Award provided detailed directions for R&R, including land allotment, house plots, and civic amenities. The Court observed that the States were lagging in identifying and acquiring land for resettlement. The Grievance Redressal Authorities (GRAs) were tasked with ensuring that oustees were satisfactorily rehabilitated. The Court emphasized that further construction of the dam would only proceed pari passu with the implementation of R&R measures. The States were directed to obtain suitable land for resettlement and certify the rehabilitation status before increasing the dam height.Seismicity:The seismicity aspect of the SSP was examined, and it was found that the issue had been sufficiently addressed. The Court did not find any need for further consideration of this aspect.Cost Effectiveness:The Court held that the cost-effectiveness of the SSP did not require re-examination. The decision to proceed with the project was based on its potential benefits, including power generation and increased agricultural production. The abandonment of the project would mean a loss of these benefits, and no effective alternatives were available.Conclusion:The Court issued several directions to ensure compliance with environmental and R&R conditions. Construction of the dam was allowed to continue, subject to clearances from the R&R Sub-group and the Environment Sub-group. The Narmada Control Authority (NCA) was directed to prepare an action plan for further construction and R&R work. The GRAs were given the responsibility to certify the rehabilitation status before any increase in the dam height. The Court emphasized the need for the project to be completed expeditiously while ensuring the protection of the environment and the rights of the oustees.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
