नर्मदा बचाओ आंदोलन बनाम मध्य प्रदेश राज्य (PIL)
| Citation | AIR 2011 SC 1989, (2011) 7 SCC 639 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Date | 11 May 2011 |
| Year | 2011 |
| Bench | J.M. Panchal, Deepak Verma, B.S. Chauhan JJ. |
| Acts/Articles | Article 226, Article 32 |
| Category | Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) |
Key Principle Established
Rules relating to maintainability of PIL explained — PIL must not be used for personal gain or as a publicity tool. Courts must scrutinize bona fides of PIL petitioners.
This case related to the Omkareshwar Dam on the Narmada river. Narmada Bachao Andolan challenged various orders of the High Court regarding the dam’s environmental and rehabilitation aspects. The Court examined the maintainability rules for PIL.
The Court laid down comprehensive guidelines on PIL maintainability:
This judgment refined the PIL framework to prevent its misuse. While preserving PIL as a vital tool for justice, it set boundaries to ensure that only genuine public interest matters receive judicial attention. These guidelines are regularly cited by High Courts when examining PIL maintainability.
(1982) 1 SCC 618
Equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal derivable from Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) read together.
Read Analysis(2020) 9 SCC 1
Daughters have equal coparcenary rights by birth under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 — irrespective of whether the father…
Read Analysis(1984) 1 SCC 131
An institution receiving government grants is "State" under Article 12. Employees of such bodies are entitled to Article 14 and…
Read AnalysisThis judgment summary is for educational and research purposes. While care has been taken to accurately represent the ratio and findings, for authoritative reference always consult the original judgment text from official sources (SCC Online, AIR, Manupatra, or court websites).
22+ years of practice before Punjab & Haryana High Court and Supreme Court of India.