 Hello and welcome to NewsClick and Communism Combat. Today we are going to discuss about the Sardar Sarovar Dam case and to discuss the issue we have with us, Supreme Court Advocate Sanjay Parikh. Welcome to our program, sir. Thank you. So, you have been pursuing the Sardar Sarovar Dam case since 2002 and now the final order has been passed. How do you see the journey? It is really a very, very, very long journey, nearly 15 years. And I remember that on each stage when any clearance was given, we were coming to the court and asking the court really for rehabilitation of the people. But for that purpose you must understand that Sardar Sarovar is an interstate project. These states which are involved is the Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Mostly people in Madhya Pradesh are going to be affected. There was an award which was given. Usually in interstate projects, award is being given. One important condition was that persons whose 25% or more than 25% land is going to be affected, they will be provided land-based rehabilitation. Means land for land will be given to them. The land will be irrigable and cultivable land. If they are losing their houses naturally, house plot will be given. Then there will be rehabilitation site. For rehabilitation site, all the other facilities will be provided to them. Like, you know, if you approve a village, then the rehabilitation site will be just like, you know, the facilities which are available in the village will be available in that particular place. Another important clause was as the height will increase, then people who are affected at a particular height will be rehabilitated paripaso. Paripaso will mean that simultaneously, suppose the height is going up to 99 meter, then those who are affected up to 99 meter, they will be rehabilitated. Then 100 meter or 110 meter like that, it was happening. There was a judgment which was given in 2000. That was actually the main judgment which was given by 3 judgements, by Supreme Court, that if the dam height is raised, then people will be rehabilitated simultaneously. They do not have to come to the court again and again. There were a number of other things. One very important condition was that the resettlement and rehabilitation of the people will be on better of principle because they said the rehabilitation is a component of Article 21 life itself and the Article 21 of the Constitution. So, better of principle will mean that if they are shifted from the village, then the new place will have more amenities and facilities for them. And naturally, when the land is provided, irrigation facilities will be given to them. All those, you know, it was a part of award. And the court directed that the conditions of the award are like a decree and they will be executed like a decree. There won't be any change in it. Now, after the judgment was given, then 2002, some affected people came and said, in spite of the judgment, we have not been rehabilitated. Then clearance was given to raise the dam height up to 110. Then thereafter again, it was raised. So, each stage, the persons who were affected because of the increase in dam height were moving applications before the court. So, they were saying that look at it, we have been affected and according to the award, we should be rehabilitated. These applications are pending, but then there was no state which was granted by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the dam height reached up to the 138.68 is the final height where you have to put the gates, etc. The gates have been put now. Finally, if the gates are down, then the submergence will take place. That is the situation of Sahara server. In this scenario, when it was pending nearly for 10 years or 12 years, these applications, the entire thing is 15 years as we said. The Supreme Court has now given a final verdict that people who are entitled for land will be given 60 lakhs. Persons who had taken, who were duped actually in some kind of a deal which was investigated by JHA commission, to them the court said that they will be given 15 lakhs, minus whatever they have taken. So, this is how it has happened that the entire award was actually land-based rehabilitation, but people have been given 16 lakhs and 15 lakhs. There is a further direction that after taking the money, they have to vacate by 31st of July and there is also that some force will be applied for their eviction. What are the major issues in the Sahara server dam case? Whether the rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected people have actually been done? What should have been done by the Supreme Court was to rehabilitate the people as and when they were affected. Now people who came 10 years back and said that we are affected, we should begin land, we should begin house plots. All those people, all these years were waiting. There was another judgment which was given in 2005 that once the rehabilitation is done completely, means the house plots have been provided, amenities and facilities have been given, rehabilitation is over, 6 months time for the purpose of shifting from their villages or from their house to that particular place. This is actually what was conceived in the award, this is what the 2000 judgment said which was repeated in 2005 judgment. In the entire process of development, you are saying that no, it will be generation of lexity, some irrigation facilities will be provided. Now it is at the cost of whom? These people are losing their lands, these people are losing actually their livelihoods. The entire displacement not only of a particular house but the entire village as such. So in this kind of a scenario, you talk about the protection of rights of the people who are ultimately going to be affected because development cannot be only for one purpose, development ultimately must have a human face and people who are affected, they should be rehabilitated. Now the entire argument for 15 years that these people are asking for their rights, not that they are saying that no, this is what they want but they were saying this is what has been given to us by way of award, this is what has been given by way of 2000 judgment, this is what has been given by your 2005 judgment. So on the ground, the situation which ought to have been, which was conceived actually when the 1979 award was given, when it was thought of when 2000 judgment was given or 2005 judgment was given has not been fulfilled on ground. You recently visited some of the villages in Madhya Pradesh. So what did you notice there, how people are reacting to the judgment? So when I reached there, it was nearly 11, 30, 12 o'clock and I went to a particular village and you will be surprised that women, children, lots of people they were waiting, there were nearly about 300, 400 people who were there. So I asked one girl, I think must be 9 or 10 years old, I said why you are sitting, for what purpose? And she looked at it, the awareness, she said we are here because we know that the house is going to be flooded, we want to know what will happen here. So this was at 12 o'clock in the night, then I went to other villages but everywhere I found that people were eager to know that what will happen after 31st of July. And I found that those villages are centuries old, means they are very, very old villages because near Narmada you can understand the civilization must have developed. Now that is a big question mark. Wherever I went, this question was put, that is alright, the benefit has been given to some people but what about the others who were eking their livelihood from this particular place. So probably what has been envisaged is that you take 60 lakhs and then immediately shift so the time period for purchasing land when they will go and start cultivating which was provided actually 6 months is not there. Now I saw some of the rehabilitation sites, there is nothing which is available there, in terms of that a person can shift and start living there. They must have a plot, then the construction has to be made, then thereafter there should be other facilities like medical facilities, there should be schools, there are other things. So if they shift now, the question is which is the place which will provide them the same kind of safety, security, convenience as they are having in the village. And there are 144 villages and one township, it will be a big kind of human misery and human suffering besides the, you know, losing the place where they were living. But you know the cultural thing is there, the entire historical background is there, their emotional attachment, everything is vanishing in this time. So what are your general impression about rehabilitation and resettlement, whether people who are affected really get justice. Now the other case which I did was Terry, you know Terry Dam when they, so I happened to visit that Terry town. Only few days were left actually before the submergence was to take place. There were only 10 or 12 people including men and women and the entire city was looking like a ghost town, candlelight, you know they were walking in the streets. That is what they were doing at the end, because everybody had virtually walked out of this. And after few months when I went there, the entire thing you know Terry town was not there. So this is one thing which I saw, it is alright there new Terry town, there is some kind of construction which has been done, people have their problems. Still actually I am fighting that case now, that is entering into probably 20 years or something. People are still not rehabilitated, because of filling of water in the Terry Reservoir, the further displacement is taking place in that region. That issue is pending, it was pending in Supreme Court, now Supreme Court transferred it to the High Court, now it is pending in Uttarakhand High Court. Similarly in Sardar Sarawak had gone to a tribal place for holy. So I saw you know how all of us played holy and then the tribals from different parts they had come with their musical instruments and they were dancing and all. And again same thing happened, same place, when I visited again I found that it has been completely submerged. The most important thing is that in a welfare state, when you are talking about development, you do your development. But I think it is duty of the state, it is duty of the courts ultimately to see that development should not be at the cost of human suffering. This is what I have been experiencing in all these cases for the last 30 years or so, not only these two but then I can narrate number of other cases. But ultimately in the development process, human being suffer and particularly the poor and downtrodden or tribals. It is possible to remedy this situation. There is some compassion shown because ultimately when you talk of law, law alone is not sufficient. Law along with compassion for these people and that is what actually the entire constitution says. That is what number of judgments also pronounced but somehow you know those things are missed at a particular point of time. Thank you so much for talking to us. This is all the time we have for today. Keep watching girls and thank you so much.