Priors
Precedents

Enron Dabhol power project protests

8 Nov 1994 – Jan 1999, Maharashtra

Villagers of Guhagar taluka in Ratnagiri district, Maharashtra, and activists from across India protested against the Dabhol Power Company plant promoted by Enron, with the largest actions in 1997. The Shiv Sena-BJP state government had suspended the project in August 1995 after a cabinet sub-committee review, then accepted a renegotiated agreement in January 1996 and allowed construction to proceed. Police applied rolling prohibitory orders under Section 37 of the Bombay Police Act from January 1997, arrested several hundred protesters at a time, used lathi charges and tear gas, and district magistrates issued Section 144 orders barring Medha Patkar from Ratnagiri and Raigad districts and B.G. Kolse-Patil from Ratnagiri district. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented the response in 1997 and 1999.

Draft. Written with AI help from the sources listed. Not yet checked by a person. 26 claims are held back until sourced. Report an error

In power
SS: Maharashtra; INC: Maharashtra

What the government did

  1. 1994

    OtherState government, MaharashtraShare

    Human Rights Watch reported that from 1994 the Dabhol Power Company paid the state government Rs 125 per officer per day for police stationed at the site under Section 47 of the Bombay Police Act, with between 10 and 300 officers there at any time.

    MoreLess · 5 sources

    In June 1995 the Los Angeles Times reported 200 police assigned to guard workers at the site. Amnesty reported that a 100-strong State Reserve Police battalion was deployed after the 30 January 1997 protests. The company said that by law it had to offset the cost of the extra police and that it had "no authority over their actions".

    Legal basis: Section 47, Bombay Police Act

    • between 10 and 300 officers stationed at the site at any time, said Human Rights Watch [9]
    • 200 police assigned to guard workers, June 1995, said Los Angeles Times [26]
    • 100 State Reserve Police battalion deployed after 30 January 1997, said Amnesty International [10]

    Sources [1][9][10][11][26]

  2. 3 May 1995

    Commission of inquiryState government, MaharashtraShare

    The new Shiv Sena-BJP government constituted a cabinet sub-committee chaired by Deputy Chief Minister Gopinath Munde to review the project.

    MoreLess · 3 sources

    The committee called the one-on-one negotiation a "grave impropriety" and recommended cancelling Phase II and repudiating Phase I.

    Sources [15][5][13]

  3. 3 Aug 1995

    ConcessionState government, MaharashtraShare

    After a Cabinet meeting, Chief Minister Manohar Joshi announced in the legislature that construction on Phase I would stop and Phase II would be cancelled.

    MoreLess · 4 sources

    Enron began arbitration in the United Kingdom in August 1995. In September 1995 the state filed Civil Writ Petition 3392 of 1995 in the Bombay High Court to have the power purchase agreement declared void.

    Court: In its judgment of 2 December 1996 the Bombay High Court found that the agreement had in fact never been scrapped; the company had only been asked to stop work. [16]

    Sources [5][16][17][18]

  4. 8 Jan 1996

    OtherState government, MaharashtraShare

    The state government announced that it would accept a renegotiated project.

    MoreLess · 4 sources

    Chief Minister Joshi said the tariff would fall by 22.5 percent, from Rs 2.40 to Rs 1.86 per unit. According to Human Rights Watch, the deal committed the state to a 740 MW Phase I and a 1,320 MW Phase II.

    Sources [6][12][19][20]

  5. 2 Dec 1996

    OtherCourtShare

    A Bombay High Court division bench (Justices B.P.

    MoreLess · 5 sources

    Saraf and M.S. Rane) dismissed the CITU public interest petition and two others against the agreement. It held the challenge barred by res judicata and delay, and found that the petitioners had not placed on record material to support the allegations of corruption and bribery. The court said the Munde committee report held "enough indications" of corruption and that the common man had been "taken for a ride". On 2 May 1997 the Supreme Court issued notice only on the accountability of the State of Maharashtra for its inconsistent stand.

    Sources [16][7][14][21][22]

Outcome

Construction continued and the plant went ahead; in September 1997 the state approved a further Enron facility at the site. Prosecutions of protesters remained pending in October 1998. By then the state had adopted none of the NHRC's recommendations on the Raigad incident, and Human Rights Watch knew of no police officer investigated or charged over the beating of villager Sanjay Pawar. The Supreme Court case on the state's accountability stayed pending until 11 April 2019, when the court closed it after Maharashtra said that continuing the Kurdukar commission of inquiry, appointed in 2001, was no longer useful or feasible.

Background

Who governed at the start of the protest. Each action above counts for the party in power where and when it happened.

Centre government
Janata DalUnited Front, H.D. Deve Gowda (to April 1997), then I.K. Gujral, Prime Minister
State government
SS in Maharashtra, Manohar Joshi, Chief Minister
Places
Dabhol, Guhagar, Veldur, Anjanvel, Ranavi, Katalwadi, Pawarsakhari, Chiplun, Mahad
Cause
Opposition to the Enron-led Dabhol Power Company plant on cost, corruption, land acquisition and environmental grounds
Organisers
Guhagar Taluka Enron Vaa Salagna Prakalp Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti, Enron Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti, National Alliance of People's Movements, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Samajwadi Jan Parishad, Centre of Indian Trade Unions
Scale
Estimates for the largest demonstration at the plant gates, on 30 January 1997, range from 1,500-2,000 (Human Rights Watch) and more than 3,000 (Amnesty International) to about 10,000 (organisers' sources cited by the Indian Express); Human Rights Watch investigated at least 30 demonstrations in 1997 and recorded arrests of several hundred people at a time

What they said

Words in quote marks were matched in the source. Everything else is a summary; open the source for the exact words. Each statement says whether the speaker's party was in power or in opposition at the time.

In power

Told the legislature that the project was against the interests of Maharashtra and its people, that the negotiations had been one-sided, and that cancelling the agreement was necessary even if it caused a financial burden.

Summary, not a quote

SSManohar Joshi, Chief Minister of Maharashtra3 Aug 1995[5][17][18]

In opposition

Vowed during the 1995 state election campaign to push Enron, or the project, into the Arabian Sea.

Summary, not a quote

BJPGopinath Munde, BJP leader, opposition, during the state election campaign1995[26][11]

Sources

  1. 1The Enron Corporation: Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Violations - Summary and RecommendationsHuman Rights Watch, Jan 1999T5 SecondaryArchived 15 Aug 2000
  2. 2The Enron Corporation: Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Violations - Ratnagiri: Violations of Human Rights 1997 (part 1)Human Rights Watch, Jan 1999T5 SecondaryArchived 18 Aug 2000
  3. 3The Enron Corporation: Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Violations - Ratnagiri: Violations of Human Rights 1997 (part 2)Human Rights Watch, Jan 1999T5 SecondaryArchived 18 Aug 2000
  4. 4The Enron Corporation: Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Violations - Legal Restrictions Used to Suppress OppositionHuman Rights Watch, Jan 1999T5 SecondaryArchived 18 Aug 2000
  5. 5The Enron Corporation: Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Violations - Background: the Munde Committee and cancellationHuman Rights Watch, Jan 1999T5 SecondaryArchived 18 Aug 2000
  6. 6The Enron Corporation: Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Violations - Background: renegotiationHuman Rights Watch, Jan 1999T5 SecondaryArchived 18 Aug 2000
  7. 7The Enron Corporation: Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Violations - Background: the CITU lawsuitHuman Rights Watch, Jan 1999T5 SecondaryArchived 18 Aug 2000
  8. 8The Enron Corporation: Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Violations - Ratnagiri: Abuse of the Indian Penal Code (Katalwadi, Veldur)Human Rights Watch, Jan 1999T5 SecondaryArchived 18 Aug 2000
  9. 9The Enron Corporation: Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Violations - Complicity: the Dabhol Power CorporationHuman Rights Watch, Jan 1999T5 SecondaryArchived 16 Aug 2000
  10. 10India: The "Enron project" in Maharashtra - protests suppressed in the name of development (AI Index ASA 20/31/97)Amnesty International, Jul 1997T5 SecondaryArchived 15 Jul 2024
  11. 11Enron's Abuse of PowerMultinational Monitor, Nityanand Jayaraman, Sep 1997T4 ReportArchived 6 Jan 2003
  12. 12Down with protestsDown To Earth (via India Environment Portal), 14 Aug 1997T5 Secondary
  13. 13The Enron JinxOutlook, Jan 1996T5 Secondary
  14. 14Center of Indian Trade Unions v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (C) No. 7734 of 1997, judgment of 11 April 2019Supreme Court of India, 11 Apr 2019T2 Court
  15. 15Report of the Cabinet Sub-Committee to Review the Dabhol Power Project (text reproduced as Appendix B of the Human Rights Watch report)Government of Maharashtra, Cabinet Sub-Committee (text on hrw.org), 1995T1 RecordArchived 16 Aug 2000
  16. 16Center of Indian Trade Unions and another v. Union of India and others, Writ Petitions 2456 and 2912 of 1996, AIR 1997 Bom 79Bombay High Court (text on CourtKutchehry), 2 Dec 1996T2 Court
  17. 17India Orders Plug Pulled on U.S.-Run Power ProjectLos Angeles Times, John-Thor Dahlburg, 4 Aug 1995T4 ReportArchived 15 Sep 2019
  18. 18Canceled Deal Sets Back Reforms in IndiaThe Christian Science Monitor, Eric Weiner, 11 Aug 1995T4 ReportArchived 3 Oct 2015
  19. 19India Approves Revised Enron Power ProjectLos Angeles Times, John-Thor Dahlburg, 9 Jan 1996T4 Report
  20. 20Second Thoughts on India; Enron Project on Track, but Policy Doubts RemainThe New York Times, John F. Burns, 9 Jan 1996T4 ReportArchived 26 May 2015
  21. 21Indian Court Backs Enron on Power ProjectThe New York Times, 3 Dec 1996T5 SecondaryArchived 26 May 2015
  22. 22Sena-BJP used Enron to achieve its political ends: HCThe Indian Express (Express News Service), 3 Dec 1996T5 SecondaryArchived 22 Apr 1997
  23. 23Medha Patkar held near DabholThe Indian Express (Express News Service), 31 Jan 1997T5 SecondaryArchived 20 May 1997
  24. 24Alleged assault on Medha PatkarThe Indian Express (Express News Service), 31 May 1997T5 SecondaryArchived 17 Jul 2004
  25. 25Maharashtra govt pulled up for atrocities against PatkarUNI via Rediff On The Net, 29 Oct 1997T5 Secondary
  26. 26This Power Game Has High Stakes for IndiaLos Angeles Times, John-Thor Dahlburg, 22 Jun 1995T4 Report

Similar precedents

Faded actions are ones this precedent does not share.

2006–08Singur and Nandigram land acquisition protestsCPI(M): West Bengal; INC: CentreBetween 2006 and 2008 the Left Front government of West Bengal acquired about 997 acres at Singur (Hooghly) for a Tata Motors small car plant and planned a chemical hub and special economic zone on about 10,000 acres at Nandigram (East Midnapore). Farmers, the Trinamool Congress and allied groups resisted both. The state used prohibitory orders, police deployment and, at Nandigram on 14 March 2007, police firing that killed 14 people. The Nandigram project was dropped in March 2007, and Tata Motors left Singur in October 2008. Section 144 / 163FiringCommission of inquiryConcessionOther2017Jallikattu protests in Tamil Nadu, January 2017AIADMK: Tamil Nadu; BJP: CentreFrom 16 January 2017 students and youth gathered in Alanganallur and then on Marina Beach, Chennai, to demand that jallikattu be allowed despite a Supreme Court ban. The AIADMK government obtained Union clearance for an ordinance, promulgated on 21 January, and the Assembly passed a replacement Act on 23 January. On the morning of 23 January police evicted the Marina crowd and used lathis and tear gas during clashes. Police later imposed Section 144 on the Marina, and the state set up a commission of inquiry into the violence. NegotiationConcessionOtherLathi chargeTear gasSection 144 / 163Commission of inquiry2006–07Kalinganagar police firingBJD: OdishaOn 2 January 2006, police at Kalinganagar in Jajpur district, Orissa (now Odisha), fired on Adivasi villagers who were opposing construction of a boundary wall for a proposed Tata Steel plant on land acquired by the state's industrial development corporation. The state government's count was 12 villagers and one police havildar killed; later reports give 13 or 14 villagers as injured people died. The BJD-BJP state government ordered a judicial inquiry, raised ex gratia payments and transferred the district collector and superintendent of police, while the Bisthapan Virodhi Jan Manch blockaded the Daitari-Paradip highway (NH-200) for about 14 months. Tear gasFiringCurfewOtherConcessionCommission of inquiryBarricadingSection 144 / 163

Entry last updated 15 Oct 2026. Something wrong or missing? Edit content/precedents/enron-dabhol-1997.yaml