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

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