Reported by
Legal Review by
Edited by
Updated by
Published on
May 27, 2019
May 17, 2022
Edited on
May 27, 2019
Since 2005, Ratnagiri, a coastal district in Maharashtra, has become a hotbed of protests against what will be the world's largest nuclear power plant. Jaitapur, a village in the district's Rajapur tehsil, was among the six sites recommended by a site selection committee for setting up of the nuclear power plant in 1984. In 2005, the Government of India gave an "in principle" approval to two light water reactors (LWRs) of 1,000 megawatt each and in 2009 gave another "in principle" approval for setting up six LWRs of 1,650 megawatt each. Upon completion, the Jaitapur power plant will be the world's largest nuclear power generating station, with a net capacity of 9,900 megawatt. The construction of the plant requires land from five fishing villages in the vicinity Madban, Varliwada, Karel, Niveli and Mithgavane as well as a residential complex for its employees. Over the years, marine biologists, nuclear scientists and environmental activists, along with the projectaffected people, landowners, fisherfolk and farmers have opposed the project and protested against the lack of public consultation; procedural violations, such as nonreceipt of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report up to a month prior to the public hearing; land acquisition by invoking an emergency provision and under coercion; technocommercial viability of the project; threat of radiation leaks; lack of a plan for disposal of nuclear waste; environmental damage to orchards and the release of hot water from the facility that will adversely affect fish population and the livelihood of 15,000 fisherfolk in the area. According to analysis by experts, while the EIA of the project rules out any adverse impact on the flora, fauna and human inhabitants of the area and states that the proposed site is rocky and barren, parallel studies by the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) show otherwise (see the report attached). In its preliminary report, "Diversity of Coastal Marine Ecosystems of Maharashtra", the BNHS says that the nuclear project will adversely affect the ecology of the area and lists 16 ecologically sensitive sites within a 10kilometre radius of the proposed plant. Meanwhile, experts, activists and the residents of Jaitapur have also opposed the project as Jaitapur falls under Seismic Zone III. The accepted norm as per the Vengurlekar Committee recommendations is that nuclear power plants should not be built in areas beyond Seismic Zones I or II. Between 1985 and 2005, there have been 91 instances of seismic activity at the proposed nuclear plant site, some measuring as high as 6.3 on the Richter scale. Civil society organisations, such as Konkan Bachao Samiti and Janhit Seva Samiti, have filed a public interest litigation in the Bombay high court challenging the process of granting environmental clearance to the project as per the EIA notification of 2006 and without an assessment of nuclear pollution, safety and technology of the project by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. The petition was admitted by the Bombay high court in March 2018. In the same month, when French President Emmanuel Macron visited India, the leaders of the two countries reiterated their resolve to begin work on the plant by December that year. India and France had signed an agreement on peaceful use of nuclear energy on September 30, 2008, for building the Jaitapur plant. But even a decade later, the project is still at the negotiation stage. One of the primary reasons for the delay is the fierce opposition to the plant by the local people. In the past years, Jaitapur has witnessed several violent protests. According to media reports, protests against the project first began when a notification for a joint land survey was issued on December 14, 2005. Section 144 was imposed and 55 people were arrested when a group of protesters went to the site to interrupt the survey. In January 2006, the Maharashtra government issued a gazette notification for land acquisition, which was done by invoking Section 17 of the 1894 Land Acquisition Act's provision for emergency acquisition that expedites the process to 15 days and by doing away with Section 5(A), which gives a landowner the right to raise objections. Violence broke out on January 22, 2010, when a meeting by the projectaffected families was held in Madban village in Ratnagiri. Government officials and police were prohibited from entering. Violence ensued after the police arrived in large numbers, and 72 people were reportedly arrested. In October that year, the National Power Corporation of India Limited signed a rehabilitation package for the projectaffected persons with the Maharashtra government, offering, INR 5 lakh per hectare or choice of employment to the affected families. A majority of the landowners refused to accept the compensation. Amjad Borkar, who strongly opposes the project, told Mongabay in 2019 that the nuclear project would prove disastrous for the region's marine life as processed water released in the sea will increase the sea temperature. In August 2018, the residents of Madban held a protest opposing the land acquisition for the project. One of the protesters was quoted in a news report as saying that the use of nuclear fuel, its impact on global warming and potential threat to fisherfolk are issues not being properly addressed by the government. Opposition to the project continues.
Opposition against environmental degradation
Refusal to give up land for the project
Complaint against procedural violations
Rural
Private
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
112000
Type of investment:
Revised Investment
Year of Estimation
Page Number In Investment Document:
Has the Conflict Ended?
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Land Acquisition Laws, Environmental Laws, Other, Central/State Government Policy
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Pending
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
No
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
High Court of Bombay
Case Number
W.P. No. 8458 of 2008
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Arrest/detention/imprisonment
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
During a protest on December 14, 2005, Section 144 was imposed and 55 people were arrested when a group of protesters went to the site to interrupt the survey.
Date of Violation
December 14, 2005
Location of Violation
Nature of Protest
Advocacy (for inclusion in courts)
Campaigns (grassroots organisations/press releases/media)
Complaints/petitions/letters/memorandums to officials
Development of a network or collective
Objections as part of official procedures
Protests/marches
Public campaign
Refusal of compensation
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Department of Atomic Energy
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
National Power Corporation of India Limited
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Électricité de France
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Image Credit:
Image Credit:
© 2023 Nut Graph LLP
All Rights Reserved.
