- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
B.D Sharma v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
A letter written by Mr. Sharma during his tenure as Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was treated by the Supreme Court of India as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The letter questioned the relationship between the Commissioner and the Union as well as State Governments, the enforceability of the Commissioner’s reports, and the implementation of recommendations aimed at protecting Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. An interlocutory application subsequently focussed the Court’s attention on rehabilitation issues arising from the Sardar Sarovar Project, an inter-State, World Bank–assisted scheme on the Narmada river. Parallel writ petitions concerning the same project were already pending before the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts. In this order, the Supreme Court addresses the immediate need to regulate and supervise the rehabilitation of families displaced by the project.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, and to what extent, the reports and recommendations of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes impose enforceable obligations upon the Union and State Governments.
- How the Court should ensure methodical and timely rehabilitation of oustee families affected by the Sardar Sarovar Project, without unduly delaying construction of the project itself.
Arguments of the Parties
Submissions by Mr. Sharma (Petitioner)
- Highlighted alleged infractions of constitutional and statutory obligations toward Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
- Pointed out that substantial rehabilitation progress in Gujarat had reduced local agitation.
Submissions by the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra
- Provided updated figures on the number of oustee families: approximately 4,500 in Gujarat, 6,800 in Madhya Pradesh, and 2,468 in Maharashtra.
- Informed the Court that about 3,100 of the 4,500 families in Gujarat had already accepted rehabilitation packages.
Submission by the Union of India
- Through the learned Additional Solicitor General, indicated that a National Commission would be set up before the end of September 1991 to address administrative difficulties raised by Mr. Bagla, the current Commissioner.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged that Mr. Sharma’s letter raised significant constitutional questions, justifying its treatment as an Article 32 petition. Turning to the interlocutory application, the Court recognised that the granular regulation of a complex, inter-State development scheme was impractical for judicial hands-on management. Nonetheless, the constitutional obligation to rehabilitate displaced persons—particularly Scheduled Castes and Tribes—required judicial oversight.
After reviewing State-supplied data, the Court concluded that many families remained to be rehabilitated, especially outside Gujarat. Strict adherence to contractual conditions such as an eighteen-month evacuation notice was considered unrealistic given project delays and external financing pressures; however, the Court insisted that rehabilitation must be completed at least six months before any area is submerged.
To convert this mandate into an operational mechanism, the Court directed the activation of a sub-committee under the Narmada Control Authority, chaired by the Secretary, Social Welfare. This committee must:
- Visit affected areas regularly and supervise on-ground rehabilitation.
- Ensure that homestead relocation, agricultural land substitution, and other agreed benefits are provided methodically.
- Submit detailed monthly progress reports to the Court.
Finally, the Court clarified that its intention was not to impede construction but to guarantee humane and lawful displacement procedures.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: The Court directs the Secretary, Social Welfare–led sub-committee of the Narmada Control Authority to oversee and personally supervise the rehabilitation of all remaining oustee families, ensuring completion at least six months before submergence of their lands. Monthly progress reports must be filed with the Court, and the matter is listed for further review on 20 September 1991.
Implications: The order imposes a continuing supervisory jurisdiction on the Court over the rehabilitation process but does not create new precedent; it primarily affects the parties by setting concrete timelines and monitoring mechanisms while allowing construction of the Sardar Sarovar Project to proceed.
Order
1. We have heard Mr Sharma in person, learned Additional Solicitor General for Union of India and counsel for the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Mr Bagla, the present Commissioner who is present in Court has also been heard.
2. A letter received from Mr Sharma, while he was in Office as Commissioner of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has been treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. His letter essentially raised questions with reference to the relationship between the Commissioner and the Union of India as also the State Governments, the effective nature of the Reports made from time to time by the Commissioner; implementation and non-implementation of the recommendations and the consequences arising out of the same and the constitutional methods which should have been generated for the purpose of treating the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of monitoring their welfare. That letter apparently appeared to raise constitutional issues of importance and, therefore, we considered it appropriate that it should be examined. It is true that in the letter reference was made to certain institutions where according to Mr Sharma, there was infraction of the obligation and, therefore, certain action should be taken.
3. The interlocutory application now filed is in relation to a question which perhaps requires more of regulation than constitutional questions to be looked into. We are told that writ petitions are already pending before the High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat filed by people who are affected by the developments that are taking place in those States with reference to the Sardar Sarovar. Apart from the fact that writ petitions are pending and the High Courts had made certain interim orders, the nature and particulars are yet not known. It is really difficult for this Court to regulate the details of the working of a scheme of this nature but we are of the view that the rehabilitation of the oustees as a result of the Project coming up can be examined.
4. Counsel for the three States have supplied the figures on the basis of which we find that in Maharashtra there will be 2468 oustees, in Gujarat the number would be 4500 and in Madhya Pradesh it would be 6800 or so. The Award indicated certain figures but there has been a change in the position of oustees.
5. From the affidavit of the Gujarat Government we find that out of 4500 oustee families about 3100 families have already accepted rehabilitation. The remainder obviously is yet to be attended to. Mr Sharma has also told us that in view of the fact that State of Gujarat has already been taking rehabilitatory steps, there is not much of agitation against the Scheme in Gujarat. We have been told that in the other two States there is some amount of agitation.
6. Sardar Sarovar is an inter-State project, the feeder being Narmada an inter-State river. This is financed by the World Bank and assistance is forthcoming from some of the foreign countries. As it is, completion is behind schedule. It is, therefore, difficult to look for enforcement of what had been contemplated either in the agreement or in the Award. While we agree that the rehabilitation should be done as far as possible in a methodical and meticulous way, to enforce terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement such as eighteen months' notice before effecting evacuation in terms may be difficult and may not be beneficial for the ultimate purpose. We understand that there is a Committee headed by the Secretary, Social Welfare, as a Sub-Committee under Narmada Control Authority. We would require this Committee where the Secretary, Social Welfare is the Chairman, to be activised so as to ensure rehabilitation. We would direct that this Committee should move in the areas where there is rehabilitation to be undertaken and directly ensure that rehabilitative process is undertaken. The rainy season is on but within a month or six weeks the weather would improve. We would, therefore, require rehabilitation to be personally supervised at intervals by the Committee in all the areas likely to be submerged when water is stored.
7. It was submitted to us that the first storage of water in Gujarat area is to be done in 1992, and within two years it would be done in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is, therefore, necessary that before April 1992, rehabilitation should be effected in regard to the oustees who are said to be the remainder out of 4500. Rehabilitation should be so done that at least six months before area is likely to be submerged, rehabilitation should be complete and should be in respect of homestead substitution of agricultural property and such other arrangements which are contemplated under the rehabilitation Scheme. This Court would require a report to be furnished of the developments and progress made in the matter of rehabilitation once in every month. We would, therefore, suggest to the Committee to meet at least once after they have visited the areas which they consider necessary, give their views with particular details of rehabilitation to be placed before the Court for directions.
8. We make it clear that it is not our intention to hold up the progress of the work. On the other hand we would like it to be completed expeditiously so that the time lag may not affect the construction of the project.
9. Mr Bagla wanted to make out a point about his difficulties in functioning. To meet it, learned Additional Solicitor General made a statement that government had decided to set up the National Commission before the end of September 1991.
10. List the matter on September 20, 1991.
Alert