By Ramendra Mishra
The proposed Chutka Nuclear Power Project in Mandla district, Madhya Pradesh, brings together three questions that cannot be separated: India’s need for reliable electricity, the rights of communities whose land and livelihoods may be affected, and the long-term health of the Narmada river system. The project is planned as two indigenous pressurised heavy water reactors, each with a capacity of 700 megawatts, for a total of 1,400 MW. The Union government has accorded it administrative approval and financial sanction at an estimated cost of ₹21,000 crore. These figures describe a major energy investment. They do not, by themselves, establish that the project’s social and environmental costs have been fairly addressed.
The Chutka debate is also shaped by an earlier development project: the Bargi Dam, built on the Narmada. For many families in this region, the question is not simply whether a new project will bring benefits. It is whether people who have already lost land, homes and community ties once will now be asked to make those sacrifices again.
A project on the Narmada
The Chutka site is near the Bargi reservoir on the Narmada. The project’s environmental impact assessment describes the site as being on the reservoir’s right bank, about 27 kilometres upstream of the dam. The reservoir is therefore central to the project’s operation, including its cooling-water arrangements. This makes the project a Narmada issue as well as a land-acquisition issue.
A river is more than a source of water. It supports drinking-water supplies, farming, fishing, local ecosystems and the cultural life of communities along its banks. Any large power project using reservoir water must therefore answer practical questions: how much water will it draw in different seasons; how will competing needs be protected; how will water quality and temperature be monitored; and what will happen to fishers and other people who depend on the reservoir?
These are questions to be answered through current, publicly available evidence—not assumptions that the project will necessarily damage the river, or that safeguards will automatically prevent harm. The EIA and clearance conditions should be explained in accessible language, with monitoring results shared regularly. Local communities should be able to see how water use, discharge and ecological effects are being measured, and whom they can approach if the results raise concerns.
The memory of Bargi
Bargi is not an abstract reference for residents of the region. Historical accounts report that the dam affected 162 villages across Mandla, Seoni and Jabalpur districts, with about 82 villages completely submerged. One frequently cited estimate says about 7,000 families were displaced and that Scheduled Tribes made up 43 per cent of them. These figures come from older records and should be read as estimates of a past project, but they convey the scale of the upheaval.
The experience of displacement is rarely limited to the day a family leaves its home. It can mean losing farmland, access to forests and common land, fishing grounds, neighbours, sacred places and familiar routes to work or school. Cash compensation may replace the recorded value of a plot, but it cannot by itself replace these relationships or ensure that a family can rebuild its livelihood.
The Chutka project has renewed these anxieties. In 2024, ThePrint reported that 605 families from Chutka, Kunda, Manegaon and Tatighat were identified for rehabilitation, and that 32 families faced displacement for a second time after being moved during the Bargi Dam project in the 1980s. These figures reflect reporting at that time and may use a broader definition of affected families than later government figures.
In its answer to a Lok Sabha question on 1 April 2026, the Department of Atomic Energy stated that land acquisition for 708.19 hectares had been completed. It reported that a rehabilitation and resettlement package had been announced for 330 project-displaced persons, that a resettlement colony had been ready for occupation since 2022, and that those families had refused to move there. The department also said a state-level steering committee had recommended additional compensation and other measures, with ₹117.65 crore of a recommended ₹196.43 crore deposited with the district administration by the date of the answer. The figures are not necessarily inconsistent: they may count different categories of people or come from different stages of assessment. The government should publish a clear, updated register explaining who is counted, what each family is entitled to, and what remains unresolved.
A completed colony is not the same as successful rehabilitation. Families must be able to assess whether the housing, location, water, roads, schools, health services and livelihood options meet their needs. Their refusal to move should prompt discussion and a documented response, not simply be treated as a final administrative obstacle.
Rights in a Fifth Schedule area
Mandla is listed by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj as a district fully covered by the Fifth Schedule. That status matters. The Fifth Schedule provides a special constitutional framework for the administration of Scheduled Areas and the protection of Scheduled Tribe communities. PESA—the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996—recognises the role of Gram Sabhas in local decision-making. The land-acquisition law also sets special requirements for Scheduled Areas. Under the 2013 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, prior consent of the relevant Gram Sabha or other appropriate local body is required for acquisition in Scheduled Areas. Forest-dependent communities may also have rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
These protections should not be reduced to a box-ticking exercise. The Lok Sabha answer states that Gram Sabha meetings were held in Patha, Tatighat and Chutka on 16 March 2012, and in Manegaon and Kunda on 17 March 2012, and that applications and support for the project were recorded. That official account should be made available alongside the relevant meeting notices, attendance records, minutes and resolutions. A credible process must let residents understand what was proposed, what land and rights could be affected, and what the consequences would be. It must also allow people to raise objections and have them recorded and answered.
The Forest Rights Act matters because rights are not confined to titled private plots. A family may depend on forest land, community resources or customary access even when its rights have not yet been formally recognised. The government’s 2026 answer lists 119.46 hectares of forest land among the acquired project land and says that Gram Sabha meetings and forest-rights compliance were addressed. Those statements make public access to the underlying records especially important. Each affected family and community should be able to verify how its land, forest rights and livelihood claims were assessed.
Seismic risk requires transparent review
The concern that this is an earthquake-prone region deserves careful examination. The project’s EIA has described the site as being in seismic Zone II, which is classified as a lower-seismicity zone in India’s zoning system. At the same time, central India has experienced significant earthquakes: the 1997 Jabalpur earthquake had a magnitude of about 5.8 and was associated with the Narmada–Son lineament. CSIR-NGRI records that NPCIL sponsored geological and geophysical studies of the Balai Lineament and the Jabalpur–Mandla fault, including investigations around the Chutka site.
These facts do not, on their own, prove that the proposed plant is unsafe. Nor does a broad seismic-zone classification make site-specific questions unnecessary. Nuclear safety depends on detailed assessment of faults, ground motion, reservoir-related effects, engineering standards and emergency planning. The relevant studies and regulatory findings should be available in a form that independent experts and local representatives can examine. Clear information about monitoring, emergency procedures and public communication would help residents distinguish measured risk from speculation.
Development must include the people who bear its costs
Supporters of the project may point to its planned 1,400 MW capacity and the role of nuclear energy in a lower-carbon electricity system. Those are relevant considerations. But a national benefit does not settle the questions of who gives up land, who receives electricity, who loses access to common resources and whether those who are displaced can rebuild their lives.
That is why compensation should be only one part of a wider rehabilitation plan. The plan should identify landowners, tenants, agricultural labourers, fishers, forest users and other livelihood-dependent households. It should explain how each group qualifies for support. Resettlement should provide secure housing and access to water, healthcare, education, transport and sources of income. Families facing a second displacement should receive particular attention because the losses and disruption they face are cumulative.
The process also needs a way to resolve disputed claims. Affected residents should be able to inspect the beneficiary lists, correct errors and challenge decisions through an accessible grievance mechanism. Independent social and environmental audits could check whether promised compensation has been paid, whether entitlements have been missed, and whether rehabilitation is restoring livelihoods over time. Findings should be public, with a clear timeline for responding to unresolved issues.
A fair test of progress
Chutka should not be discussed only as a contest between energy development and opposition to a project. A better test is whether the project has been planned and implemented with full respect for affected people’s rights, whether the river and local livelihoods are protected, and whether people who must move are able to rebuild their lives with dignity.
The memory of Bargi makes this test urgent. If families displaced once are again expected to leave, their experience must shape decisions now—not be treated as a footnote in a project report. Gram Sabha records, forest-rights decisions, seismic studies, water-use plans and rehabilitation entitlements should be transparent and open to scrutiny. Community concerns should receive clear, evidence-based answers, and unresolved disputes should be addressed before people are expected to move.
Reliable energy can serve the public interest. So can protecting the Narmada, honouring constitutional safeguards and ensuring that tribal communities have a meaningful role in decisions affecting their land and future. Development in Chutka will be credible only when these responsibilities are treated as part of the project itself.
Ground Realities Session
The All India Professionals’ Congress also took up these ground realities in its online Civil Society Speaks: Stories, Struggles & Solutions, Session 2, on 10 October 2026. The speakers were Vivek Awasthi of the Rajiv Gandhi Panchayati Raj Sangathan, Meera Bai Maravi of the Chutka Nuclear Power Project Opposing Women’s Front, Raj Kumar Sinha of the Bargi Dam Displaced and Affected Sangh, and Dadulal Kudape of the Chutka Parmanu Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti. Their participation brought local, women’s and Bargi-displaced perspectives into the discussion of development, displacement and tribal rights.