INTRODUCTION
Near Kupi village in Chhatarpur, on the banks of the Barana River, the protest against the Ken-Betwa Link Project has taken a form rarely seen in an Indian infrastructure dispute. Tribal women wore nooses around their necks in a symbolic ‘faansi satyagraha’. Farmers stood waist-deep in river water for hours as a ‘jal satyagraha’. Mothers lay on funeral pyres, the ‘chita satyagraha’, while their children held banners reading ‘Nyay Do Ya Mar Do’ – give us justice or let us die.[1]
The movement, led by the Jai Kisan Sangathan, has run intermittently since April 2026, resuming in July when protesters contended the state’s assurances were not kept. An indefinite hunger strike by activist Amit Bhatnagar reached its fourteenth day before police cleared the protest site on 19–20 July 2026; police stated no protester was arrested, and Bhatnagar was hospitalised for a medical check. The state has since raised its rehabilitation package to Rs 12.5 lakh per family, though protesters maintain their objection is to the loss of land itself, not its price.[2]
This piece asks whether resettlement and consultation complied with the Forest Rights Act and PESA, whether the project’s clearances can survive pending litigation, and what changes would resolve the impasse.
BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT
The Ken-Betwa Link originates from the National Perspective Plan of 1980, India’s blueprint for inter-basin transfers, developed after a 2005 memorandum between the Centre, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.[3] The Union Cabinet approved it in December 2021 at an estimated cost of Rs 44,605 crore, with the foundation stone laid in December 2024.[4] The plan is to build the Daudhan Dam on the Ken inside the Panna Tiger Reserve, carrying water through a roughly 221-kilometre canal to the Betwa basin, projected to irrigate 10.62 lakh hectares, supply water to 62 lakh people, and generate 103 MW of hydropower.[5] Independent assessments dispute this scale and the premise that the basin has water to spare.
WHY LOCALS AND TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ARE PROTESTING
The protesters are largely Gond and Kol communities from villages including Dhodhan, Palakauha, Kupi and Khariyani. The Jai Kisan Sangathan states that over fifty thousand people, across roughly 2,000 households, stand to lose land, forest access and river-based livelihoods that compensation cannot replace.[6] Chhatarpur has sanctioned benefits to 3,080 families, with 638 more approved, but protesters allege delayed payouts and demolitions during the monsoon.[7]
Protesters also allege criminal cases against leaders including Bhatnagar, and police barricading and night patrols; rights groups have sought a judicial probe.[8] These remain allegations, not findings, but using criminal law against people pressing for due compensation sits uneasily with the protection afforded to peaceful assembly and protest.[9]
FOREST RIGHTS ACT AND PESA
The Forest Rights Act 2006 exists to prevent this displacement: section 4(5) bars eviction of a forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribe member until the section 6 verification procedure is complete, regardless of Fifth Schedule status.[10] Whether that procedure was completed before resettlement is disputed, and remains central to the protesters’ claims.
The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 requires Gram Sabhas to be consulted before land is acquired and persons resettled, but only in notified Fifth Schedule areas.[11] The Supreme Court has read PESA alongside the Forest Rights Act as giving Gram Sabhas a substantive consultative role there.[12] Chhatarpur and Panna, however, have never been so notified, unlike Madhya Pradesh’s western tribal belts, so PESA does not legally apply here.[13] It is discussed for comparison: the absence of that safeguard is a policy gap, not a legal violation; closing it would require a fresh Fifth Schedule notification or legislative amendment.
ARTICLE 21 AND THE FIFTH SCHEDULE
Article 21 protects the right to life.[14], and courts have long read the right to livelihood into that guarantee; this protection applies regardless of Fifth Schedule status. In Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Court held eviction depriving a person of livelihood engages Article 21 and must follow a fair procedure, and losing land, forest and river income here raises a comparable concern.[15] Article 244 and the Fifth Schedule are a separate, narrower safeguard, giving the Governor power to modify laws for Scheduled Areas[16]Because Chhatarpur and Panna sit outside that boundary, only this extra layer is unavailable, not the underlying Article 21 right, even though ground conditions resemble notified areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND WILDLIFE CLEARANCE
The project required separate approvals: wildlife clearance from the National Board for Wildlife under the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 in 2016, and a distinct environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 in 2017.[17] The Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee later examined the wildlife clearance, and in a 2019 report found the water-surplus projection unproven and the habitat diversion not shown to meet the statutory standard.[18] That report has not been considered by the Court, and litigation over both clearances remains pending before it and the National Green Tribunal.[19]
About 10 per cent of Panna’s Critical Tiger Habitat lies within the submergence or fragmentation zone, habitat that rebuilt its tiger population from zero in 2009 to over fifty within a decade.[20] The dam sits mainly within Panna National Park, so section 35(6) applies there, barring destruction or water diversion affecting wildlife unless necessary for the reserve’s management; downstream, altered flows threaten the Ken Gharial Sanctuary, where section 29’s parallel bar applies to sanctuaries.[21] In TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India, the Supreme Court’s approach to forest diversion is often summarised as barring even a blade of grass from removal without due process.[22] A project advancing to construction while its clearances remain under challenge, and while the section 35(6) standard has already been questioned, sits uneasily with that approach.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE
In M C Mehta v Kamal Nath, the Supreme Court held that the State holds natural resources in trust for the public, and in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India that sustainable development requires precaution rather than deferred scrutiny.[23] Neither ruling nor the CEC’s pending report currently stays construction, which has continued regardless; the point is normative, not a claim of legal restraint, that these questions ought to be resolved before the reserve is permanently altered.
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE
Bundelkhand’s water scarcity is real and long documented.[24] But addressing it need not mean submerging a tiger reserve’s core or bypassing the people who live there. What follows are recommendations, not legal entitlements. Forest rights should be settled before further land is taken. As policy, not legal obligation, the government could notify these villages under the Fifth Schedule to extend PESA-style consultation; tribal character alone does not make that status mandatory, but it is a reasonable basis to consider it. The Supreme Court should resolve the pending clearance challenge before construction advances, and compensation should move toward land-for-land rehabilitation with a transparent cut-off date.
CONCLUSION
Development and constitutional rights are not supposed to be adversaries, but the Ken-Betwa project has put them in tension. A dam can bring water to a thirsty region; it should not take tribal women in nooses, farmers standing in a river, and children watching their mothers on funeral pyres to prompt scrutiny of whether that water is delivered lawfully. Whether the project becomes a model for India’s other river links, or a cautionary tale, depends on whether the Forest Rights Act is honoured, the litigation runs its course, and Chhatarpur and Panna’s people are treated as rights-holders rather than an obstacle to a dam.
Author(s) Name: Shakshi (Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi)
References:
[1]‘Environment, Adivasi Groups Back Chita Andolan Protest Relaunch Over Ken-Betwa Project’ (TimelineDaily, 11 July 2026) <https://timelinedaily.com/india/environment-adivasi-groups-back-chita-andolan-protest-relaunch-over-ken-betwa-project> accessed 14 August 2026.
[2]Amita Bhaduri, ‘Ken-Betwa River Inter-Linking: Inside India’s Controversial Water Megaproject’ (India Water Portal, 27 July 2026) <https://www.indiawaterportal.org/rivers-and-lakes/displacement/ken-betwa-river-inter-linking-project-thirst-and-a-forests-survival> accessed 14 August 2026; ‘Protest Against Ken-Betwa Project in MP Ends Abruptly as Police Clear Site’ (The Print, 20 July 2026) <https://theprint.in/india/protest-against-ken-betwa-project-in-mp-ends-abruptly-as-police-clear-site/2990309/> accessed 14 August 2026.
[3]‘Ken-Betwa Link Project Explained: Why Are Tribal Families Protesting In Madhya Pradesh?’ (Outlook India, 18 July 2026) <https://www.outlookindia.com/national/ken-betwa-link-project-explained-why-are-tribal-families-protesting-in-madhya-pradesh> accessed 14 August 2026.
[4]‘Centre Approves Ken-Betwa Rivers Linking Project’ (Deccan Herald, 8 December 2021) <https://www.deccanherald.com/national/centre-approves-ken-betwa-rivers-linking-project-1058880.html> accessed 14 August 2026..
[5]ibid.
[6]‘Environment, Adivasi Groups Back Chita Andolan’ (n 1).
[7]Bhaduri (n 2); ‘Pyre Protest Resumes in Madhya Pradesh Against Ken-Betwa Link Project Over Displacement and Environmental Damage’ (Down To Earth) <https://www.downtoearth.org.in/rivers/pyre-protest-against-ken-betwa-link-project-resumes-in-madhya-pradesh> accessed 14 August 2026.
8 ‘Rights Groups Seek Judicial Probe Into Action Against Ken-Betwa Protesters’ (Counterview, May 2026) <https://www.counterview.net/2026/05/rights-groups-seek-judicial-probe-into.html> accessed 14 August 2026.
[9]Constitution of India, art 19(1)(b); Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re (2012) 5 SCC 1.
[10]Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, ss 4(5), 6.
[11]Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996, s 4(i).
[12]Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd v Ministry of Environment and Forest (2013) 6 SCC 476.
[13]‘State Wise Details of Notified Fifth Schedule Areas’ (Ministry of Panchayati Raj) <https://panchayat.gov.in/en/state-wise-details-of-notified-fifth-schedule-areas/> accessed 14 August 2026.
[14]Constitution of India, art 21.
[15]Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545.
[16]Constitution of India, art 244, Fifth Schedule.
[17]‘Wildlife Clearance for Ken Betwa Project’ (Press Information Bureau, 14 March 2022) <https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1805813> accessed 16 September 2026.
[18]Chhatrasal, ‘Ken-Betwa River Linking Project: A Recipe for Bulldozing Public Policy Amidst Environmental Concerns’ (The Wire, 21 December 2024) <https://thewire.in/environment/ken-betwa-river-linking-project-a-recipe-for-bulldozing-public-policy-amidst-environmental-concerns> accessed 14 August 2026; ‘Ignoring Damning SC Panel Report, Modi Govt Kickstarts Work on Ken-Betwa Link Project’ (The Wire, 18 July 2021) <https://thewire.in/environment/rti-centre-sc-cec-report-ken-betwa-link-project> accessed 16 September 2026.
[19]ibid.
[20]Susan Chacko, ‘Ken-Betwa River Interlinking: Core Forest Area of Panna Tiger Reserve Will Come Under Water, Warns Study’ (Down to Earth, 28 December 2021) <https://www.downtoearth.org.in/environment/ken-betwa-river-interlinking-core-forest-area-of-panna-tiger-reserve-will-come-under-water-warns-study-80885> accessed 15 August 2026.
[21]Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, ss 29, 35(6)
[22]TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267.
[23]M C Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388; Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647.
[24]Bhaduri (n 2).