[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DAM-L Indian Supreme Court absurd ruling given ecological lit.
----- Forwarded message from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net -----
From owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net Thu Oct 19 22:28:19 2000
Return-Path: <owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net>
Received: from DaVinci.NetVista.net (mjdomo@mail.netvista.net [206.170.46.10])
by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA27909
for <dianne@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:27:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net
Received: [by DaVinci.NetVista.net (8.10.0/8.8.8) id e9K2Bma22625
for irn-narmada-list; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net)]
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200010200211.e9K2Bma22625@DaVinci.NetVista.net>
subject: LS: Ecological Absurdities from the Supreme Court
Sender: owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net
Precedence: bulk
Dams are not polluting industries, says Supreme Court
Press Trust of India
October 19, 2000
While giving a green signal to the Sardar Sarovar Project, the Supreme
Court ruled that construction of big dams cannot be equated with setting up
of polluting industries, as far as their effect on the environment was
concerned.
"What is being constructed is a large dam. The dam is neither a nuclear
establishment nor a polluting industry. The construction of a dam
undoubtedly would result in the change of environment but it will not be
correct to presume that the construction of a large dam will result in
ecological disaster," the court said.
Justice B N Kirpal, who wrote the majority judgment in the verdict given by
a three-judge bench on Wednesday, said merely because there would be a
change was no reason to presume that there would be ecological disaster.
"It is when the effect of the project is known then the principle of
sustainable development would come into play which will ensure that
mitigative steps are and can be taken to preserve the ecological balance,"
Justice Kirpal, with whom Chief Justice A S Anand concurred, said.
He said India had an experience of over 40 years in the construction of
dams and added that experience did not show that construction of a large
dam was not cost-effective or led to ecological or environmental degradation.
Justice Kirpal said, "On the contrary there has been ecological upgradation
with the construction of large dams."
This ruling came from a three-judge bench, which disposed of a petition
filed by Narmada Bachao Andolan, a non-governmental organisation led by
Medha Patkar, which had challenged the construction of the Sardar Sarovar
Project on the Narmada river.
Referring to the submergence of villages, the court said that the SSP
reservoir level at 455 feet would affect 193 villages in Madhya Pradesh, 33
villages in Maharashtra and 19 villages in Gujarat. Of these, only four
villages (three in Gujarat and one in Madhya Pradesh) are getting submerged
fully and the total area of submergence was 11279 hectares (1877 Gujarat,
1519 Maharashtra and rest Madhya Pradesh).
Comparing the SSP with the Hirakud dam in Orissa, Shriramsagar in Andhra
Pradesh, Gandhisagar in Madhya Pradesh, Tungabhadra in Karnataka and
Nagarjunasagar in Andhra Pradesh, the court said, "The SSP has the least
ratio of submergence to the area benefited (1.97 per cent). The ratio of
some schemes is as much as 25 per cent."
The court said displacement of people due to major river valley projects
had occurred in developed and developing countries.
The worrying factor was the absence of rehabilitation and relief schemes,
it said and added that in the case of the SSP there was a definitive scheme
under implementation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to majordomo@netvista.net
with no subject and the following text in the body of the message
"unsubscribe irn-narmada".
----- End of forwarded message from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net -----