This article s about the nature and implications of the
Supreme Court judgment on the Narmada (Sardar Sarovar) case, and not about the
merits of the project or about the question of large dams in general.
‘Judgment’ here refers to the majority judgment by justices Kirpal and Anand.
While the minority judgment that prevails and constitutes the judgment in this case;
and being the judgement of the highest court in the land, it represents
finality form a legal point of view. The petitioners have no legal recourse
against it, other than a review petition to the Supreme Court itself. It
follows that criticisms of the judgement may have no practical consequences.
Nevertheless, they may still serve a useful purpose and it is in that belief
that this article is being written.
It is written with a heavy heart. During the last decade or
two, the Supreme Court has been blazing a trail. While there has been some
criticism of what has come to be known as judicial activism, it has on the
whole won national approval. Most of us (this writer included) have been
grateful to the Judiciary for trying to rescue the country form the egregious
failures of the Executive and the Legislature. Unfortunately, all that good
work has been nullified – at one stroke by this single judgement, which blazes
a trail in the wrong direction. The complain of the present writer is not that
the judgment allows the project to proceed further; it was never his
expectation that the SC would stop the project. However, he had hoped that
approval to further construction would be severely conditional and that justice
would be done to project- affected persons (PAPs). Those hopes have been belied. The judgment
can only be described with deep regret, as one of the worst in the history of
SC. Such a statement cannot be made lightly; the following paragraphs will
provide the necessary justification,
The judgement allows the dam to go up to 90 meters, and
stipulates that further construction would be conditional on a clearance (in
stage of 5 m) by the Environmental arid Rehabilitation Subgroups of the Narmada
Control Authority (NCA) from their respective points of view and with reference
to the conditions of clearance with which they are concerned. However, if that
check is warranted after 90 meters, it is equally warranted before that height
is reached. Rehabilitation had not been completed fully even in relation to a
height of 80m. This must have been clear enough from the material before the
Court, it has also been clearly stated that land for resettlement is not
available in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. There are deficiencies in the
judgment with relation to the environmental conditions too. It is beyond doubt
that the pari passu clause has not been complied with.
Thus, there is an
existing situation of failure of compliance with, conditions. This is
corroborated by the fact that based on the material before the court (which was
common to all three judges) the minority judgment calls for a halt to the
project until it is put through a fresh scrutiny and clearance. there can be differences
between the majority and minority judgments in respect of opinions, conclusions
and prescriptions, but nit in relation to the knowledge base, The existing
failure constitutes a violation of the Tribunals’ directions as well as those
already given by the supreme court itself, and a non-fulfillment of the
conditions prescribed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the
planning commission while according approval to the project in 1987. Justices
Kirpal and Anand may not agree with Justice Bharucha that there is need for a
fresh examination and clearance; but should they not have made further progress
from 85m to 90m conditional on the existing deficiencies being remedied and
compliance completed? Overlooking present non- compliance and asking for
compliance to be checked at some future time amounts to a kind of amnesty
scheme for the project authorities and the Governments concerned.
1.
What is the tone of the passage?
A.
Guarded criticism
B.
Categorical denunciation
C.
Piquant patter
D.
Pompous tattle
2.
‘Amnesty’ in the context of the passage would
mean’
A.
Condone
B.
Pre-empt
C.
Delay
D.
Grant
3.
Which of the following is not true in the
context of the passage?
A.
After obtaining clearance from the relevant
authorities construction of the dam is permitted
B.
The petitioners are not against all dam projects
C.
Justice kirpal’s judgment does not agree with
Justice Bharucha’s judgment
D.
Up to a height of 85m, all stipulations have
been complied with.
4.
‘Belied ‘ in paragraph 2 means:
A.
Believed
B.
Disbelieved
C.
Far-fetched
D.
Contradicted
5.
The title of this passage could be:
A.
Sardar Saroval project: judgment day
B.
Sardar sarovar project: Justice delayed
C.
Sardar sarovar project. Travesty of justice
D.
None of the above
Answer:
1.
B Para
2, last 3 lines
2.
A
‘Condone”. Hence a.
3.
All options except d flow from the passage.
4.
D ‘contradicted’. Hence d.
5.
C
justice in the true sense has not been done. Hence C.
No comments:
Post a Comment