नर्मदा बचाओ आंदोलन बनाम भारत संघ (बांध मामला)
| Citation | AIR 2000 SC 3751, (2000) 10 SCC 664 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Date | 18 October 2000 |
| Year | 2000 |
| Bench | A.S. Anand CJI, S.P. Bharucha, B.N. Kirpal JJ. |
| Acts/Articles | Article 21, Article 48A, Environment Protection Act 1986 |
| Category | Constitutional Law, Environmental Law |
Key Principle Established
Large dam construction permitted subject to compliance with environmental conditions, proper rehabilitation of displaced persons, and monitoring by authorities.
Narmada Bachao Andolan challenged the Sardar Sarovar Dam project on the Narmada river, arguing that it would displace lakhs of people and cause massive environmental damage without adequate rehabilitation. The case raised fundamental questions about development vs. environment.
By a 2:1 majority, the Court permitted dam construction to continue subject to conditions:
Justice Bharucha’s dissent: The dam should not be built beyond the current height until complete environmental impact assessment and rehabilitation are ensured.
This is India’s most significant development vs. environment judgment. It established the framework for balancing large infrastructure projects with environmental protection and displacement rehabilitation. The principle that rehabilitation must precede submergence has become a standard requirement for all major dam projects in India.
(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.