| |
| The Supreme Court examined the Narmada Sarovar Project from different angles for seven years before it allowed the work to continue with certain caveats. Last week, the court repeated the exercise in the case of Tehri dam and allowed the scheme to go through with certain conditions [N D Jayal vs Union of India]. |
| |
| The Tehri and Koteshwar dams will result in the formation of two lakes having a spread of 42 sq km and 2.65 sq km respectively at full reservoir levels. The Tehri dam will submerge Tehri town and 22 villages, apart from partially affecting 74 more villages. |
| |
| In addition, 16 villages will be similarly affected by the Koteshwar dam. The Tehri power project will affect 37 villages fully, 88 villages partially and the entire Tehri town. |
| |
| Rebuilding the lives of lakhs of persons ousted by the project was the main issue before the court, though it had also monitored the safety and seismological aspects of the undertaking and the environmental conditions for more than a decade. |
| |
| Since the safety and environmental aspects involve scientific knowledge of complex nature, the court relied upon the expert committee reports. When the court has no expertise in such matters, it has been held in AP Pollution Control Board vs Prof M V Nayudu [1999] that it can refer to expert bodies for their opinion. The court in this case did exactly that. |
| |
| Moreover, the court has declared that it would not interfere with government policy decisions, unless they were in conflict with law, mala fide or arbitrary. |
| |
| However, the real role of the court comes in the matter of relief and rehabilitation of the displaced persons. This involves the fundamental rights of the citizens, which are protected by the Constitution. |
| |
|
