Development at Whose Cost? Revisiting the Sardar Sarovar Project

The Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River has long been at the centre of debates around development, displacement and the rights of affected communities. Published in May 2026, the report Social, Environmental & Economic Reappraisal by an independent People’s Commission, chaired by retired Justice Anjana Prakash, with Enakshi Ganguly and Dr Gorky Chakravarty as members, examines the project’s impact and raises serious concerns about incomplete rehabilitation, environmental damage and economic costs. It calls for a reassessment of the project, completion of rehabilitation and greater accountability.

For nearly four decades, Miloon Saryajani has shared a close association with the Narmada Bachao Andolan, standing in solidarity with the movement through the Pune Support Group. Medha Patkar has also been a close friend of the Saryajani collective. During a recent discussion at the Miloon Saryajani office, the fellow activists shared their reflections on the report with members of the collective. We are sharing this report as part of that ongoing conversation about development and justice. Development for whom, and at whose cost? When some benefit while others lose their homes, livelihoods and dignity, can it truly be called development? These are questions that the report brings back to the centre of the debate.

Four Decades On, People's Commission Reviews Sardar Sarovar Project to Assess Fulfilment of Its Promises: Release of the Report

An independent People's Commission has released a detailed reappraisal of the Sardar Sarovar Project on the River Narmada, concluding that the project's publicised success is contradicted by conditions on the ground, with some of the undelivered benefits, several thousand families still without full rehabilitation, unaddressed corruption, certain environmental violations, and an economics bringing forth overstated benefits and understated costs. The Commission calls for an impartial review of the project and of the development model it represents. It recommends full and fair Resettlement and Rehabilitation of all the Project Affected Families with adequate human and financial resources, as per law, policies and court judgments.

An independent People's Commission on the Sardar Sarovar- Narmada Project has released its report, Social, Environmental & Economic Reappraisal, examining the record of one of India's largest and most contested development projects more than four decades after the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award of 1979.

The Commission was convened by three civil-society organisations: Jalbiradari (Maharashtra), Development Research Institute (Odisha), and Himdhara (Himachal Pradesh), which invited three eminent independent experts to serve as Commissioners: •Justice (Retd.) Anjana Prakash, former High Court Judge (Chairperson) •Enakshi Ganguly, sociologist and social activist (Member) •Dr Gorky Chakraborty, environmentalist and social scientist (Member)

The Commission’s Activities

From 22 to 24 August 2025, the Commissioners conducted an impartial investigation in the districts of Badwani and Dhar in Madhya Pradesh. They visited 14 sites across these two districts of the Narmada Valley, focusing on submerged and devastated villages, resettlement colonies, and areas of continuing displacement, and held a public hearing at which project-affected people from all three states deposed before them: Adivasis, farmers, labourers, fisherfolk, potters, boatsmen, and traders. The Commission also examined written submissions from affected people and experts, as well as those by the researchers, the Narmada Bachao Andolan and Paryavaran Suraksha Samity, apart from Supreme Court and High Court judgments, state-level Narmada Authority policies, and state government orders.

What the Commission Found through Visits, Documentation & Depositions

•Promised benefits remain partly undelivered. Even 45 years after the Tribunal Award, the project has not provided drinking water, irrigation, and power as promised in the plan across Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. Kutch and Saurashtra- the drought-prone regions in whose name the project was justified- have received only a fraction of the promised water, with roughly 5000 km of canal network still unbuilt, even as three major cities and over 450 industries in Gujarat receive adequate supply. The minor canal network, left unbuilt in Kutch, has deprived it the most.

•Rehabilitation remains incomplete. Even after the resettlement of 50,000 families in 3 states achieved through the government’s response to mass movement, legal actions, rehabilitation, which was to be completed at least six months before submergence of any property of any family, even temporarily, is not fully and fairly completed and complied with the Tribunal Award as law, and state-level liberalised policies.

•Thousands remain without rehabilitation. Large numbers of Project-Affected Families across the three states have not received full and fair resettlement and rehabilitation. In Maharashtra and Gujarat, hundreds are still deprived. In Madhya Pradesh, 15,946 backwater-affected families were excluded from the official list of affected persons from 2008 onward, following revisions to Backwater Levels. Thousands of them have not been allotted house plots, even after acquiring their houses and shops, and hundreds of families have been living in unlivable tin sheds since 2019, while some are in government buildings or in their own affected houses.

•Amenities are still lacking at R&R sites. There are more or less civic amenities that have been provided over the years, with respect to adequacy and quality, in violation of the Narmada Tribunal Award and state-level policies. This includes water supply, roads to farms, drainage, health centres, etc., which are lacking at different sites, and resettled families are suffering. In Maharashtra, irrigation facilities or grants for it are pending for hundreds of families. In Gujarat, some sites are suffering due to being allotted uncultivable land.

•Corruption has gone unaddressed. Despite a detailed, 7+-year-long evidence-based inquiry by the Justice Jha Commission, appointed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2008, no deterrent action has been taken in the past 8 years against more than 186 officials, employees, and middlemen implicated, as per the Report.

•Communities have been wrongly excluded. Families affected by SSP-associated works- the project colony at Kevadia, the canals, and the downstream weir- have been kept out of the affected-persons category. Many Adivasi communities and families have faced non-compliance with Forest Rights Act, 2006 or denial of forest rights and related rehabilitation rights. In the Statue of Unity tourism zone, the report links to violations of the PESA Act and suffering imposed on Adivasis in that region.

•Implementation of environmental mandates is claimed but not perfect. New challenges are serious. Illegal sand mining persists despite statutory prohibitions, while the influx of municipal sewage and industrial effluents continues to compromise the river Narmada’s purity and ecological integrity. The Commission also highlights a concerning lack of scientific rigour in addressing critical challenges such as adequate downstream flow and salinity-sea ingress/ prevention. It also notes that years-long efforts toward Compensatory Afforestation and Catchment Area Treatment remain inadequate to protect and mitigate as well as compensate for the loss occurred to the river's ecosystem. The Command Area Development also has drawbacks being discussed in the official meetings.

•The Project’s economics is found to be flawed. The Commission finds that the project's appraisals for a long time was incomplete and externalised costs. The original 1983 Benefit-Cost ratio of 1.84 has been overtaken by sustained cost escalation. The Report recalls the warning from the World Bank and the Bradford Morse Commission’s review that the true ratio could be negative if and when overstated benefits and underestimated costs are truthfully accounted for.

Taken together, the Commission delineates the Sardar Sarovar Project not merely as an instance of economic miscalculation, but as an example of irregularity in governance, which is claiming the Sardar Sarovar cost to be Rs 75,000+ in crores, with external costs added. Furthermore, it underscores the proposition that the social and cultural costs sustained by displaced communities may be beyond the reach of full economic compensation.

Recommendations

The Commission notes that the report serves a recommendatory function, whilst emphasising that compliance with extant legislation, policies, and judicial mandates is a binding legal obligation on the respective governments. The primary recommendations are articulated as follows:

•Review the SS Project. With the 45-year review clause of the 1979 Tribunal Award having fallen due in December 2024, the Union and state governments should sincerely review the project in light of the issues raised in the report.

•Commission an independent economic reappraisal. A fresh, non-governmental cost-benefit analysis,s based on truthful current ground realities, should be conducted impartially as a part of the Tribunal Award review.

•Complete rehabilitation for all. No affected person should be left without full and fair resettlement and rehabilitation, including all wrongly excluded families. Their entitlements should include land, house plots and housing grants, civic amenities, and secure livelihoods, as per eligibility and as applicable, not only cash compensation. For this, all the vacant posts for Rehabilitation and in the Grievance Redressal Authority, especially in Madhya Pradesh, need to be filled urgently.

•Ensure civic amenities at rehabilitation sites. All civic amenities need to be provided at each rehabilitation site, with funds from Gujarat or the state governments of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, without delay. Without it, the PAPs resettled cannot be considered as ‘rehabilitated’. As per Madhya Pradesh state policy, any appeal on this should be disposed of by the Collector in 3 months, with action taken. GRA is also made responsible for this issue by the Supreme Court, through the order of 8.2.2017 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court order of 2023.

•Build accountable institutions. The report calls for an independent Statutory Resettlement Authority- a proposed National Commission on Rehabilitation of the Project Affected- with transparent public ledgers and enforceable timelines. There needs to be binding up-front financing for rehabilitation and environmental safeguards before any project begins, and public auditing of cost escalation, with continuous review of the Benefit-Cost ratio.

•Protect the river and its communities. It recommends halting illegal sand mining with deterrent action, withdrawing the proposed tourism project of Cruise in Narmada-SS reservoir that violates NGT and Supreme Court orders. It also recommends repealing the provisions of the Statue of Unity Act that harm Adivasi rights, and prioritising the minor and qualitative canal network for Kutch and Saurashtra, giving priority to providing water supply benefits in Gujarat to the really needy communities, as per the initial promises and plan. It further recommends urgently implementing scientific corrective measures to address environmental flow, siltation, salinisation, and pollution of the Narmada.

•Prioritisation should be just and justifiable. There is a need to prioritise all Project Affected Families and communities of SSP and other upstream dams, and not to impose additional dams and projects that are questioned by Adivasis under the PESA Act. Links from Narmada Water to transfer it beyond the Narmada River Basin in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra need to be reviewed and seek the consent of local communities.

•Gujarat’s funding responsibility is not to be avoided. There is a need to fulfil Gujarat's legal mandate to pay compensation for land lost and R&R expenses in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, based on a truthful and joint assessment. The share of the two states should be limited to their share in power generation only.

•Re-examine the development model. Beyond this single project, the Commission urges governments and civil society to reconsider a development paradigm that displaces communities, undermines livelihoods, and damages ecosystems, and to weigh feasible alternatives for the public good that are decentralised, planned through democratic processes, and locally manageable with technology, without giganticism.

About the Report

The Report is organised into eight chapters: the historical background to the Narmada Project; the Commissioners' site visit; displacement, resettlement and rehabilitation across the three states; status of grievance redressal; environmental impacts; an economic reappraisal; and conclusions and recommendations, followed by a set of annexures. The annexures include a chronology of important dates, a tabulated note on the depositions, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award, the summary of relevant Supreme Court and High Court judgments from 2000 to 2019, Grievance Redressal Authority records, and a timeline of major events from 1985 to 2025.

The People’s Commission members are thankful to the three convening organisations, who have committed to disseminating the report to the civil society, and welcome its translation into other languages. The Commission hopes that the Governments concerned will consider the Report seriously and with openness, and take the necessary actions to ensure justice and sustainability.

• Justice (Retd.) Anjana Prakash, Enakshi Ganguly and Dr. Gorky Chakraborty