[DEBATE] : (Fwd) Narmada water warriors win against libertarian pests

[Patrick Bond]

(Russell - weren't these naughty NCCLites your sp!ked friends' allies in 
Against Nature?)

(Excerpts from the Judgment given far below)
12 July 2007

Dear friends,

You must have already heard of and read the news of the Supreme Court 
judgment passed on 10th July, dismissing the petition by National 
Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), a Gujarat based NGO, against the 
Andolan. The allegations included that of illegal funding, being foreign 
stooges, and misusing foreign funds for destabilizing and anti-National 
activities as well as sedition. The court's judgment has categorically 
condemned the petition to be vague and making baseless accusation. These 
allegations were publicly made by the same petitioner i.e. NCCL, through 
various newspaper advertisements all over the country since last many 
years. Hence the judgment has indeed indicated NBA's honest position and 
commitment against the vilification campaign.

This, we know, would not have been possible without supportive action by 
eminent persons and organisations including yourself and the committed 
and effective pleading by our advocates Indira Jaisingh-ji and Sanjay 
Parikh-ji. The court, while dismissing the case, concluded it to be not 
a public purpose but a private purpose litigation. It has upheld the 
case of the project-displaced persons raised by NBA and refused to 
concede to the demand for CBI enquiry, since there is nothing 
anti-national found in NBA's activities, proved through the petition, or 
illegality in funding established. This victory, moral as also 
political, in the larger sense of the term, has come to us, in support 
of not just NBA but all people's movements.

When the petitioners raised a tricky issue of NBA challenging 
development projects and the state, the judgment has declared the cause 
to be legitimate and not anti-national. This will, no doubt, strengthen 
people's struggles questioning the vision, problems and the backlash of 
development, in the framework of human rights and civil liberties.

Many organisations, eminent individual, supporters stood by us during 
the testing times, many issued statements, wrote personal letters in 
support, condemned the defamatory campaign openly (since 2000) all of 
which gave us enormous strength and confidence to face the immoral 
attack. Since the physical onslaught at Sabarmati Ashram in Gujarat 
(2002), the attackers were making dictated statements to instill a doubt 
in the minds of common people, our supporters as well as international 
awarding organisations. The latter were written to and questioned even 
when NBA has never accepted many of international awards, but only the 
felicitation and certificates.

When movements are facing multiple challenges on behalf of the State, 
when people's strength is being repressed and their views on development 
- just and sustainable- undermined, peripheralised, even condemned, when 
the corporate-political nexus is up with all tools and weapons, either 
to push their own development agenda or to suppress the alternatives, 
this judgment would go a long way. We will remain together as always and 
fight battles for truth and justice.

DO COME TO THE NARMADA VALLEY

Satyagraha begins in adivasi village, Chimalkhedi, (Nandurbar district, 
Maharashtra) on the Narmada bank in Maharashtra, from July 17th. The 
water level in Narmada is rising and currently at least 200 villages are 
under the threat of submergence due to Sardar Sarovar Project. People 
affected by Omkareshwar and Indira Sagar dams are already on the 
streets, since last 40 days, and the fast by Chittaroopa Palit and 
Bhagwan Mukati has entered 36th day. For the reasonable demands of 
rehabilitation to be met in this context, your support in every way is 
most valuable and necessary. We shall look towards a new paradigm of 
equitable development. No submergence and displacement without 
rehabilitation, a comprehensive enactment of just development.

Ashish Mandloi, Yogini Khanolkar, Kailash Awasya, Medha Patkar


RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE JUDGMENT is given below which speaks for 
itself. Please make use of this judgment for writing and reference. The 
full judgment will soon be available at www.narmada.org


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.69 OF 2006

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES …..Petitioner

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ……..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.


.…31. Both the Union of India and State of Madhya Pradesh had little to 
add and they relied on the affidavits filed on the behalf in the 
proceedings. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of 
India, it has been generally stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs in 
its Foreign Contribution Regulation Act Division had not granted 
permission to the respondent N0.4 or certain organizations named in the 
writ petition to receive foreign funds. However, it has also been 
categorically stated that an inspection was carried out in terms of 
Section 14. of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 into the 
books of accounts of among others the Narmada Bachao Andolan, Badwani, 
Madhya Pradesh in 2002 and the same did not reveal any instance of 
violation of the aforesaid Act. A similar enquiry had also been 
conducted in 2000 and then also no such violation had been detected, The 
said information was conveyed to the Chief Minister of Gujarat by the 
Minister of State Min
istry of Home Affairs Government of India, by letter dated 26th August, 
2003. The contents of the said, letter has been made annexure R-1-1 to 
the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the Union of India and reads as 
follows-

“Kindly refer to your letter N0. CMS}GO1) 150 dated the 27 September, 
2001 addressed to the Hon’ble Dy, P.M. regarding alleged violation of 
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 by the functionaries of 
Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA).

This matter was investigated in some detail under the provision of the 
said Act. The accounts records of the NBA and a number of NGO associated 
with it were inspected but no specific instance of any violation of 
FCRA, 1976 was detected.”

32. In the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, 
it has been stated that existing laws were sufficient to take care of 
the reliefs claimed, by the writ petitioner and appropriate action under 
the existing laws had already been undertaken.

33. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and 
having considered the materials on record. We are of the view that 
although ordinarily in a case like this a writ petition under Article 32 
of the Constitution would be maintainable, in the facts of this case the 
writ petition does not call any interference by this Court. The various 
decisions cited by counsel on both sides indicate in what circumstances 
public interest litigation may be entertained by the Courts. We share 
the same views. We are also of the view that public interest litigation 
may be entertained when an issue of great public importance is involved, 
but not to settle private scores as was held in Dattaraj Nathuji 
Thaware’s case (supra). Furthermore, in an application under Article 32 
of the Constitution there must be an element of infraction of one or the 
other fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution. 
Although, the writ petition has attempted to show that the writ petitio 
n had been filed for the benefit of the people of the States of Gujarat, 
Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, the facts as sought to be projected 
clearly indicate that the writ petition has been filed out of grudge 
harboured by Shri Saxena against Smt. Medha Patkar. Except for vague 
allegations regarding receipt of foreign funds by the respondent Nos. 4, 
5 and 6 and their alleged use for subversive activities, none of the 
allegations have any evidentiary value as they are unsupported by any 
evidence as such. There is no material on record to show that foreign 
funds have, in fact, been received by the respondent No.5 or that the 
same had been misutilized for subversive activities of an anti-national 
character. On the other hand, there is evidence to show that certain 
monetary awards had been received jointly by the respondent No. 5 and 
Baba Amte which had been vested in a trust which had no connection with 
the activities of the respondent No. 5. In fact, the writ petition 
appears to have been filed as a fishing exercise to try and procure 
evidence against the said respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Having seen the 
annexures to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 
5, we are inclined to accept Ms. Indira Jaising’s submissions that Shri 
Saxena had a private grudge against Smt. Medha Patkar file the writ 
petition and not in the public interest as claimed by him.

34. The respondent No.6 has been introduced in the writ petition to 
malign the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by making allegations of subversive 
activities against the respondent no. 6 and trying to establish a link 
between the respondent No. 6 and Smt. Medha Patkar to her discredit. 
There is no direct evidence of any kind of subversive activity allegedly 
engaged in by the Narmada Bachao Andolan which could be said to be 
anti-national. On the other hand, the respondent No.5 appears to be 
genuinely concerned with the rehabilitation of the tribals and the other 
habitats of the submerged areas in keeping with the decision of this 
Court that the rehabilitation programme should be completed before 
submergence of the areas which were inhabited by them.

35. Although, the writ petition has been shown to have been filed to 
protect the interest of the people of the three States of Gujarat, 
Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, except for Shri Saxena representing the 
writ petitioner association, there is no other individual who has been 
impleaded as petitioner to support such an argument. Although, the writ 
petition is alleged to be in the nature of a public interest litigation, 
the same appears to be a ‘private interest litigation’ to discredit and 
diffuse the agitation undertaken by the respondent No. 5 for 
rehabilitation of the displaced persons from the dam site before 
submergence of their habitat.

36. In our view, the materials in the writ petition consist only of 
vague allegations without any proper foundation. No case has therefore 
been made for a direction to the CBI to investigate into the said 
allegations.

37. Having regard to the view taken by us we do not intend to separately 
deal with the decisions cited on behalf of the respective parties.

38. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at 
Rs. 5,000/-.

……………………..J(C.K.Thakker)
………………………J(Altamas Kabir)

New Delhi
July 10, 2007