{"id":57236,"date":"1999-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999"},"modified":"2015-05-29T11:47:24","modified_gmt":"2015-05-29T06:17:24","slug":"narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999","title":{"rendered":"Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. A.S. Cj, S.P. Bharucha, B.N. Kirpal<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nWrit Petition (civil)  319 of 1994\n\nPETITIONER:\nNARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/10\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nDR. A.S. ANAND CJ &amp; S.P. BHARUCHA &amp; B.N. KIRPAL\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>1999 Supp(4) SCR 5<\/p>\n<p>The following Orders of the Court were delivered:\n<\/p>\n<p>DR. A.S, ANAND, C.J. This petition has been filed by the State of Gujarat<br \/>\nbringing to the notice of the Court how the petitioner-Narmada Bachao<br \/>\nAndolan-had been reacting to the interim order of this Court permitting the<br \/>\nincrease of the height of the dam to RL 85 meters and about the threats of<br \/>\nprotests, public meetings and of undertaking Satyagrahas etc., on account<br \/>\nof that order. Reference is made particularly to the interview of Ms. Medha<br \/>\nPatkar which appeared in the Hindustan Times of 27.6.1999 and some other<br \/>\nnewspaper reports and press releases issued by the petitioner. Our<br \/>\nattention has also been drawn to an article which appeared in the Weekly<br \/>\nNews Magazine `Outlook1 and to some portions of a Book titled &#8220;The Greater<br \/>\nCommon Good&#8221; by Ms. Arundhati Roy.\n<\/p>\n<p>On 22nd July, 1999, we made the following order :\n<\/p>\n<p>At the outset, our attention has been drawn to certain statements, press<br \/>\nreleases, interviews, etc., given by the petitioners themselves or by some<br \/>\nothers under the aegis of the petitioner-Narmada Bachao Andolan. Copies of<br \/>\nsome of those statements, etc., have been filed along with I.A. No. 14 by<br \/>\nthe State of Gujarat.\n<\/p>\n<p>Our attention has also been drawn to an article in the weekly news magazine<br \/>\n&#8220;Outlook&#8221; dated May 24, 1999 under the title &#8220;The Greater Common Good&#8221; by<br \/>\nMs. Arundhati Roy. A book under the same title, i.e., &#8220;The Greater Common<br \/>\nGood&#8221; by Arundhati Roy, which appears to have been dedicated to &#8220;The<br \/>\nNarmada, and all the life she sustains and Shripad, Nandini, Sylvie, Alok,<br \/>\nMedha, Baba Amte and their colleagues in the NBA&#8221;, has also been brought to<br \/>\nour notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>We have gone through the statements, the press releases, the article and<br \/>\ncertain portions of the book referred to above. Prima facie it appears to<br \/>\nus that there is a deliberate attempt to undermine the dignity of the Court<br \/>\nand to influence the course of justice. These writings, which present a<br \/>\nrather one sided and distorted picture have appeared in spite of our<br \/>\nearlier directions restraining the parties from going to the press, etc.,<br \/>\nduring the pendency of the proceedings in this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>However, before we decide to proceed any further, we consider it proper to<br \/>\nappoint an amicus to advise the Court about the action, if any, which is<br \/>\nrequired to be taken in this respect as also in respect of the writ<br \/>\npetition itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>We request Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate, President of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt Bar Association, to act as amicus and advise the court.\n<\/p>\n<p>After hearing learned amicus as well as other learned counsel appearing in<br \/>\nthe case, who all rose above the case of their clients to assist the Court,<br \/>\nwe are of the opinion that the petitioner-NBA and its leader Ms. Medha<br \/>\nPatkar have knowingly made comments on pending proceedings and have prima<br \/>\nfacie disobeyed the interim injunctions issued by this Court on 11.4.1997<br \/>\nand 5.11.1998. Prima facie the threats held out by the petitioners and its<br \/>\nleaders also appear to be an attempt to prejudice or interfere with the due<br \/>\ncourse of judicial proceedings. Litigants must realise that Courts cannot<br \/>\nbe forced by pressure tactics to decide pending cases in the manner in<br \/>\nwhich the concerned party desires. It will be a negation of the Rule of Law<br \/>\nif the Courts were to act under such pressure.\n<\/p>\n<p>Some of the objectionable passages in the Book, &#8221; The Greater Common Good&#8221;<br \/>\nby Ms. Arundhati Roy are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>I stood on a hill and laughed out loud.\n<\/p>\n<p>I had crossed the Narmada by boat from Jalsindhi and climbed the headland<br \/>\non the opposite bank from where I could see, ranged across the crowns of<br \/>\nlaw, bald hills, the tribal hamlets of Sikka, Surung, Neemgavan and<br \/>\nDomkhedi. 1 could see their airy, fragile homes. 1 could see their fields<br \/>\nand the forests behind them. I could see little children with littler goats<br \/>\nscuttling across the landscape like motorised peanuts, I knew I was looking<br \/>\nat a civilisation older than Hinduism, slated-sanctioned (by the highest<br \/>\ncourt in the land) -to be drowned this monsoon when the waters of the<br \/>\nSardar Sarovar reservoir will rise to submerge it.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Why did I laugh?\n<\/p>\n<p>Because I suddenly remembered the tender concern with which the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt Judges in Delhi (before vacating the legal stay on further<br \/>\nconstruction of the Sardar Sarovar dam) had enquired whether tribal<br \/>\nchildren in the resettlement colonies would have children&#8217;s park to play<br \/>\nin. The lawyers representing the Government had hastened to assure them<br \/>\nthat indeed they would, and what&#8217;s more, mat there were seesaws and slides<br \/>\nand swings in every park. I looked up at the endless sky and down at the<br \/>\nriver rushing past and for a brief, brief moment the absurdity of it all<br \/>\nreversed my rage and I laughed. I meant no disrespect.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Who owns this land? Who owns its rivers? Its forests? Its fish? These are<br \/>\nhuge questions. They are being taken hugely seriously by the State. They<br \/>\nare being answered in one voice by every institution at its command -the<br \/>\narmy, the police, the bureaucracy, the courts. And not just answered, but<br \/>\nanswered unambiguously, in bitter, brutal ways&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;According to the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (amended in 1984) the<br \/>\nGovernment is not legally bound to provide a displaced person anything but<br \/>\na cash compensation. Imagine that. A cash compensation, to be paid by an<br \/>\nIndian government official to an illiterate tribal man (the women get<br \/>\nnothing) in a land where even the postman demands a tip for a delivery!<br \/>\nMost Tribal people have no formal title to their land and therefore cannot<br \/>\nclaim compensation anyway. Most tribal people-or let&#8217;s say most small<br \/>\nfarmers-have as much use for money as a Supreme Court Judge has for a bag<br \/>\nof fertiliser&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Ms. Arundhati Roy is not a party to the proceedings pending in this Court.<br \/>\nShe has, however, made comments on matters connected with the case being<br \/>\nfully alive to the pendency of the proceedings in this Court. The comments<br \/>\nmade by her are prima facie a misrepresentation of the proceedings in this<br \/>\nCourt. Judicial process and institution cannot be permitted to be<br \/>\nscandalised or subjected to contumacious violation in such a blatant manner<br \/>\nin which it has been done by her.\n<\/p>\n<p>While hypersensitivity and peevishness have no place in judicial<br \/>\nproceedings-vicious stultification and vulgar debunking cannot be permitted<br \/>\nto pollute the stream of justice. Indeed under our Constitution there are<br \/>\npositive values like right to life, freedom of speech and expression, but<br \/>\nfreedom of speech and expression does not include freedom to distort orders<br \/>\nof the Court and present incomplete and a one side picture deliberately,<br \/>\nwhich has the tendency to scandalise the Court. Whatever may be the motive<br \/>\nof Ms. Arundhati Roy, it is quite obvious that she decided to use her<br \/>\nliterally fame by misinforming the public and projecting in a totally<br \/>\nincorrect manner, how the proceedings relating to Resettlement and<br \/>\nRehabilitation had shaped in this Court and distorting various directions<br \/>\ngiven by the Court during the last about 5 years. The writings referred to<br \/>\nabove have the tendency to create prejudice against this Court. She seems<br \/>\nto be wholly ignorant of the task of the Court. The manner in which she has<br \/>\ngiven twist to the proceedings and orders of the Court is in bad taste and<br \/>\nnot expected from any citizen, to say the least.\n<\/p>\n<p>We wish to emphasise that under the cover of freedom of speech and<br \/>\nexpression no party can be given a licence to misrepresent the proceedings<br \/>\nand orders of the Court and deliberately paint an absolutely wrong and<br \/>\nincomplete picture which has the tendency to scandalise the Court and bring<br \/>\nit into disrepute or ridicule. The right of criticising, in good faith in<br \/>\nprivate or public, a judgment of the Court cannot be exercised, with malice<br \/>\nor by attempting to impair the administration of justice. Indeed, freedom<br \/>\nof speech and expression is &#8220;life blood of democracy&#8221; but his freedom is<br \/>\nsubject to certain qualifications. An offence of scandalising the Courtier<br \/>\nse is one such qualification, since that offence exists to protect the<br \/>\nadministration of justice and is reasonably justified and necessary in a<br \/>\ndemocratic society. It is not only an offence under the contempt of Courts<br \/>\nact but is sui generis. Courts are not unduly sensitive to fair comment or<br \/>\neven outspoken comments being made regarding their judgments and orders<br \/>\nmade objectively, fairly and without any malice, but no one can be<br \/>\npermitted to distort orders of the Court and deliberately give a slant to<br \/>\nits proceedings, which have the tendency to scandalise the Court or bring<br \/>\nit to ridicule, in the larger interest of protecting administration of<br \/>\njustice.\n<\/p>\n<p>The action of the petitioner and its leaders Ms. Medha Patkar as well as<br \/>\nwritings of Ms. Arundhati Roy have caused us much anguish and when we<br \/>\nexpress our displeasure of the action of Ms. Arundhati Roy in making<br \/>\ndistorted writings or the manner in which the leaders of the petitioner Ms.<br \/>\nMedha Patkar and Mr. Dharmadhikari have, after giving assurances to this<br \/>\nCourt, acted in breach of the injunctions, we do so out of anguish and not<br \/>\nout of anger. May be the parties were over-zealous in projecting their<br \/>\npoint of view on a matter involving a large segment of tribal population,<br \/>\nbut they should not have given to themselves the liberty of acting in the<br \/>\nobjectionable manner as already noticed. We are unhappy at the way the<br \/>\nleaders of NBA and Ms. Arundhati Roy have attempted to undermine the<br \/>\ndignity of the Court. We expected better behaviour from them.\n<\/p>\n<p>After giving this matter our thoughtful consideration and keeping in view<br \/>\nthe importance of the issue of Resettlement and Rehabilitation of the PAFs,<br \/>\nwhich we have been monitoring for the last five years, we are not inclined<br \/>\nto initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner, its leaders or Ms.<br \/>\nArundhati Roy. We are of the opinion, in the larger interest of the issues<br \/>\npending before us, that we need not pursue the matter any further. We,<br \/>\nhowever, hope that what we have said above would serve the purpose, and the<br \/>\npetitioner and its leaders would hereafter desist from acting in a manner<br \/>\nwhich has the tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice<br \/>\nor which violates the injunctions issued by this Court from time to time.\n<\/p>\n<p>After 22nd of July, 1999 when learned amicus was appointed, nothing has<br \/>\ncome to our notice which may show that Ms. Arundhati Roy has continued with<br \/>\nher objectionable writings insofar as the judiciary is concerned. She may<br \/>\nhave by now realised her mistake. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to<br \/>\nnow let the matter rest here and not to pursue it any further. The<br \/>\napplication (LA. 14) is accordingly disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before parting with this order we wish to place on record our deep<br \/>\nappreciation for the assistance rendered to us by the amicus, Shri K.K.<br \/>\nVenugopal, Senior Advocate and all other learned counsel appearing in the<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>Let the main Writ Petition be now placed for directions on 4th Nov. 1999 at<br \/>\n2 P.M.\n<\/p>\n<p>While I record my disapproval of the statements that are complained of, I<br \/>\nam not inclined to take action in contempt against Medha Patkar, Shripad<br \/>\nDharmadhikari and Arundhati Roy because the Court&#8217;s shoulders are broad<br \/>\nenough to shrug off their comments and because the focus should not shift<br \/>\nfrom the resettlement and rehabilitation of the oustees,<\/p>\n<p>I acknowledge with gratitude the assistance rendered to the Court by the<br \/>\nlearned amicus curiae and by learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>The LA. (no. 14) is, accordingly, disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999 Bench: Dr. A.S. Cj, S.P. Bharucha, B.N. Kirpal CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 319 of 1994 PETITIONER: NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/10\/1999 BENCH: DR. A.S. ANAND CJ &amp; S.P. BHARUCHA [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57236","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-29T06:17:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-29T06:17:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999\"},\"wordCount\":1976,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999\",\"name\":\"Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-29T06:17:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-29T06:17:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999","datePublished":"1999-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-29T06:17:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999"},"wordCount":1976,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999","name":"Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-29T06:17:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-15-october-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57236","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57236"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57236\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}