Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    Narmada Bachao Andolan V

    Uploaded by

    Sulabh Gupta
    This case involves a water distribution dispute between the states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Gujarat over the Narmada River. A tribunal allowed Gujarat to build a dam and established the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) to oversee the project. Petitioners challenged the closure of construction sluices. The Court held that conception, planning, and decision to undertake infrastructure projects are policy decisions that courts typically do not interfere with. Once a project is initiated, courts can ensure it is executed properly and does not violate law or constitutional rights. The Court concluded it should not intervene in the Narmada River project as long as the authorities function properly within the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Narmada Bachao Andolan V

    Uploaded by

    Sulabh Gupta
    21 views2 pages
    This case involves a water distribution dispute between the states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Gujarat over the Narmada River. A tribunal allowed Gujarat to build a dam and established the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) to oversee the project. Petitioners challenged the closure of construction sluices. The Court held that conception, planning, and decision to undertake infrastructure projects are policy decisions that courts typically do not interfere with. Once a project is initiated, courts can ensure it is executed properly and does not violate law or constitutional rights. The Court concluded it should not intervene in the Narmada River project as long as the authorities function properly within the law.

    Original Description:

    Summary

    Original Title

    Narmada Bachao Andolan v

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a water distribution dispute between the states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Gujarat over the Narmada River. A tribunal allowed Gujarat to build a dam and established the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) to oversee the project. Petitioners challenged the closure of construction sluices. The Court held that conception, planning, and decision to undertake infrastructure projects are policy decisions that courts typically do not interfere with. Once a project is initiated, courts can ensure it is executed properly and does not violate law or constitutional rights. The Court concluded it should not intervene in the Narmada River project as long as the authorities function properly within the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    21 views2 pages

    Narmada Bachao Andolan V

    Uploaded by

    Sulabh Gupta
    This case involves a water distribution dispute between the states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Gujarat over the Narmada River. A tribunal allowed Gujarat to build a dam and established the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) to oversee the project. Petitioners challenged the closure of construction sluices. The Court held that conception, planning, and decision to undertake infrastructure projects are policy decisions that courts typically do not interfere with. Once a project is initiated, courts can ensure it is executed properly and does not violate law or constitutional rights. The Court concluded it should not intervene in the Narmada River project as long as the authorities function properly within the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors.

    [AIR 2000 SC
    3751]
    Facts:
    This case involves water distribution dispute of Narmada River
    between the Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat. Government
    of India constituted a tribunal to resolve this conflict among the
    states. This tribunal allowed state of Gujarat to build a dam and
    proposed the height of dam. Tribunal also formed a Administrative
    Authority named Narmada Control Authority (herein after referred
    as NCA) and a review committee to review the decisions of NCA.
    Ministry of Water resources on 23.04.1994 ordered for the closure
    of 10 constructions sluices. The petitioner got hurt by this decision
    demanded judicial review of the entire project.

    Issue:
     Whether judiciary can interfere in policy making decisions of
    Government.

    Held:
    The Court held that there are three stages with regard to taking an
    infrastructural project. One is the conception or planning, second
    is decision to undertake the project and the third is the execution
    of project. The conception and the decision to undertake are to be
    regarded as policy decisions. While there is always a need for such
    project not being unduly delayed, it is at the same time expected
    that a thorough possible study will be undertaken before a decision
    is taken to start a project. Once such consideration is taken, the
    proper execution of the same should e under taken expeditiously. It
    is for the Government to decide how to do its job. When it has put a
    system in place for the execution of project and such a system
    cannot be said to arbitrary, the only role which a court may have to
    play is to see that the system works in the manner it was
    envisaged.

    The court opined that a project may be executed departmentally or


    by an outside agency. The choice has to be the Government. When
    it undertakes the execution itself, with or without help of another
    organization, it will be expected to undertake the exercise according
    to some procedure or set manner. NCA was constituted to give
    effect to the award, various subgroups have been established under
    NCA and to look after the grievances of redressal machinery. Over
    and above NCA is the review committee. There is no reason now to
    assume that these authorities will not function properly. In our
    opinion court should have no role to play.

    Conclusion:
    It is now well settled that the courts, in the exercise of their
    jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision.
    Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the
    type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are
    part of policy-making process and the courts are ill-equipped to
    adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The court, no doubt,
    has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is
    violated and people’s fundamental rights are not transgressed upon
    except to the extent permissible under the Constitution.

    You might also like