नर्मदा बचाओ आंदोलन बनाम मध्य प्रदेश राज्य (PIL)
| Citation | AIR 2011 SC 1989, (2011) 7 SCC 639 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Date | 11 May 2011 |
| Year | 2011 |
| Bench | J.M. Panchal, Deepak Verma, B.S. Chauhan JJ. |
| Acts/Articles | Article 226, Article 32 |
| Category | Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) |
Key Principle Established
Rules relating to maintainability of PIL explained — PIL must not be used for personal gain or as a publicity tool. Courts must scrutinize bona fides of PIL petitioners.
This case related to the Omkareshwar Dam on the Narmada river. Narmada Bachao Andolan challenged various orders of the High Court regarding the dam’s environmental and rehabilitation aspects. The Court examined the maintainability rules for PIL.
The Court laid down comprehensive guidelines on PIL maintainability:
This judgment refined the PIL framework to prevent its misuse. While preserving PIL as a vital tool for justice, it set boundaries to ensure that only genuine public interest matters receive judicial attention. These guidelines are regularly cited by High Courts when examining PIL maintainability.
AIR 1993 SC 1960
State is liable to pay compensation for custodial death as a public law remedy under Article 32/226, independent of any…
Read Analysis(1986) 3 SCC 632
Children cannot be kept in jails. Directions issued for establishment of juvenile courts, children's homes, and appointment of duty counsel…
Read AnalysisAIR 1986 SC 180, (1985) 3 SCC 545
Right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. Pavement dwellers cannot be evicted…
Read AnalysisThis judgment summary is for educational and research purposes. While care has been taken to accurately represent the ratio and findings, for authoritative reference always consult the original judgment text from official sources (SCC Online, AIR, Manupatra, or court websites).
22+ years of practice before Punjab & Haryana High Court and Supreme Court of India.