Home case analysis State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Karnataka (1991)

State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Karnataka (1991)

September 11, 2024

261

This article is written by Varun Verma. It provides a detailed analysis of the judgement in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Karnataka (1991). The article further elaborates on the facts of the case, issues, arguments by the parties, rationale behind the judgement, and a critical analysis of the judgement. This article also discusses the provisions and articles of the Constitution which played a key role in the case.

Table of Contents

Introduction

“When the well’s dry, we know the worth of water.” – Benjamin Franklin.

The analysis of the case State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1991) is centred upon the decades long Cauvery river water sharing dispute between two states. The river under the dispute courses through the states of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Puducherry, merging eventually with the Bay of Bengal. People of these states have always believed that the river is socially, economically, politically, and culturally important in their lives. The conflict between the states pertains to the allocation of water resources, and both states have been vying for a bigger portion of the river to cater to their needs and requirements.

The genesis of this dispute lies in two agreements in 1892 and 1924 between the Princely state of Mysore (present-day Karnataka) and Madras Presidency (present-day Tamil Nadu). Over the years, the Cauvery river dispute among the states has seen a series of legal battles, agreements, and disagreements. The judgement has broader implications upon the inter-state water dispute resolution in India. This article will provide a thorough analysis of the case and the water dispute resolution mechanism.

Details of the case

Name of the case: State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Karnataka

Citation of the case: 1991 SCR (2) 501, 1991 SCC SUPL. (1) 240

Type of the case: Civil Appeal

Name of the appellant: State of Karnataka

Name of respondent: State of Tamil Nadu

Date of judgement: April 26, 1991

Name of the court: Supreme Court Of India

Bench: Khasliwal, N.M. (J), Punchhi, M.M. (J), Sahai, R.M. (J)

Facts of the case

The dispute in the case goes back to British colonial rule over 81,155 sq km of the total watershed of the Cauvery basin, which originates in Kodagu district’s Tala Cauvery in Karnataka and flows through Mysore, Haasan, and Mandya districts before entering Cuddalore, Karur, and other districts in Tamil Nadu. Cauvery river is also widely known as Kaveri river. It also flows through Kerala and Puducherry, which covers a catchment area of 34,273 sq km in Karnataka, 2,866 sq km in Kerala and the remaining 44,016 sq km in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

Since the Cauvery river holds value for the people of all four states, it was evident that disputes would arise regarding the utility of the river and the proportionate division among the states. The dispute began in 1892 between the Madras Presidency (present-day Tamil Nadu) and Mysore (present-day Karnataka). The primary dispute arose during the period of water scarcity, regarding the distribution of water during regular years, along with establishment of dams, water reservoirs, etc. Both the states were heavily dependent on the river because of their rising population and agricultural activities.

Following the disagreement and agitation among the states, the British intervened and presided over the water sharing dispute. In 1924, both the states, i.e., Madras and Mysore, came under an agreement for 50 years, where the rules of water utilisation were listed out. The agreement also allowed Mysore to build the Kannambadi Dam, while Madras proposed an irrigation project. The agreement resulted in allocation of 75% of Cauvery river’s water to Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, 23% to Karnataka and rest water flows into Kerala.

Thereafter came the period of post-independence, when this water-sharing issue became prominent among the states after the reorganisation of states in the year 1956. With escalations in violence, both the states argued over the construction of various dams on the river by Karnataka. Karnataka also contended that the agreement has referred to the “doctrine of unconscionability” with regard to the situation between both the states.

The expiration of the agreement between both also made Tamil Nadu dependent on the river for its huge area of agriculture in the delta area. Karnataka, following the post-independence period between the 1960s to 1980s built four dams on the Cauvery river, which were, Hemavati, Kabini, Suvarnavathy, and Harangi, after which precariously affected Tamil Nadu, being the lower riparian state and in the end they ultimately proceeded towards the Supreme Court.

Tamil Nadu’s Farmers Association in the Thanjavur area, along with the State Government filed a complaint under Section 3 of the Inter-state River Water Disputes Act, 1956 dated 06/07/1986 to the Central Government for their interest being pre-judiciously and injuriously affected by the breach of agreement and actions taken by the State of Karnataka relating to the distribution, use, and control of water of Cauvery river. In 1990, when the negotiations between the two states failed after hearing the petition from both sides in the Apex Court, the Supreme Court ordered the state to form a tribunal which could provide the ultimate award for the dispute. On June 2, 1990, to adjudicate the water dispute between all four states, The Central Government of India established the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) with respect to inter-state Cauvery water and river basin.

The Government of Tamil Nadu also filled C.M.P. No. 4 of 1990 to the tribunal, praying to stop Karnataka from impounding and utilising water of the Cauvery river beyond what was agreed in the terms between the Union Minister for Irrigation and Power and should restrain Karnataka from undertaking any new projects related to dams, reservoirs, canals, etc. Following this, Puducherry filled C.M.P. No. 05 for an interim order governing the two states, i.e., Karnataka and Kerala, to issue the first instalment of the final order of 20 thousand million cubic feet (TMC) of water as it was crucial to maintain the levels in Mettur Reservoir for Samba crop cultivation.

For the applications made regarding the interim relief, the tribunal dismissed them as not maintainable on the grounds that the tribunal was only authorised to govern the matters regarding the water dispute or disputes that have been referred to it. Thus, it could not entertain the prayer made by Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry for interim relief against Karnataka.

It’s clear that the tribunal wrongly refused to exercise their jurisdiction for various matters in the dispute, for the same three questions arisen out of the dispute, i.e.,

(1) whether the court has jurisdiction to decide the jurisdiction and powers of tribunal under the Act,

(2) Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to grant or entertain the applications of interim relief, and

(3) the prayers that were made by the petitioners in the applications for interim relief were covered or not under the matter referred to the tribunal.

In 1991, the tribunal passed an interim order ordering Karnataka to release 205 TMC water annually to Tamil Nadu. Karnataka promulgated an ordinance for nullifying this interim order. This was further taken down by the Supreme Court. The main issues before the Supreme Court pertained to the validity and enforceability of the 1892 and 1924 agreements for reorganisation of states, equitable water allocation, water availability assessment and apportionment principles between the two states. The Supreme Court also handled several interlocutory interim relief applications and directions filed by the states during distressed situations over the years.

Issues raised

Whether the Supreme Court of India had jurisdiction over deciding the powers and jurisdiction of the Cauvery water dispute tribunal?
Whether the Cauvery water disputes tribunal had power and jurisdiction to handle the Tamil Nadu and Puducherry applications filed for seeking the interim relief?
Whether the prayers under the filed applications for interim relief were covered under the water dispute referenced in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal by the Central Government?

Arguments of the parties

Petitioner’s arguments

The learned counsel for the petitioner state, Mr. K. Parasaran, argued in that the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Inter-state River Water Dispute Act, 1956, when read with Article 262 of the Constitution of India, only sets aside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court to govern any dispute, complaint, or matter with respect to the distribution or control, use of the waters of, or in, any inter-state river or river valley.

Petitioner reiterated its demurral that Karnataka had allegedly constructed four reservoirs consequently, i.e., over Kabini, Hemavati, Harangi, and Suvarnavathi tributaries of Cauvery river and while going against the stipulated agreement, they were storing water that was above their set limit under the agreements of 1892 and 1924. Thus, Tamil Nadu further argued that the essence of the said agreement was to utilise the water, and the decisions regarding the same shall govern claims of all the parties in the agreement, especially in the case of inter-state river and river valleys. Bare perusal of the above arguments clearly shows that the construction of the dams and reservoirs on Cauvery river without any consent of Tamil Nadu who is the second party to the said agreement is a clear violation. That being the upper riparian state does not give power to Karnataka to prejudice the interests of the people of Tamil Nadu.

The learned counsel also argued that the grievance of the appellants only extends to the statement that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any interim relief application which is wrongly concluded. The learned counsel also contended that the court is competent and can exercise such powers, and it is within their jurisdiction to govern the scope of powers of the tribunal under the Act, along with directing the tribunal to entertain any applications, for instance, the application of interim relief, etc.

The state asserted on the fact that water sharing agreements are legally binding and both states must respect them. Further invoking the principle of appropriation also means the entity that first appropriates the water for any beneficial use acquires the right of continued usage against the later appropriators. Also, the party received less rainfall, hence heavily relying just on the water resource of Cauvery river.

The state contended that the court itself has the power or jurisdiction to decide the purview in which the matter has to be decided and the powers under which the tribunal has to act. They argued that the reason to approach the court is because of their grievance, which extends to the wrongly decided matter against them by the tribunal, stating that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any matter that is not referred to it, such as, interim relief.

Respondent’s arguments

Dr. Y.S. Chitale, on behalf of respondent state for the interim relief raised objections by opposing the application, stating that the tribunal constituted under the Act has limited powers or jurisdiction and can only decide for matters as such which are confined to it or are under the Act, and there are not as such which may authorise them to grant interim relief.

The learned counsel of the respondent state also raised an objection that the court has no merits or jurisdictions to decide or entertain the appeal, as Article 262 of the Constitution distinctly provides for the adjudication of matters relating to water of inter-state rivers should be decided by laws made by Parliament.

The party has asserted the situation of having a significant area within the Cauvery basin and is dependent on its water for the livelihood of the large population there. It was also expressed by them that any reduction in its share of water could adversely affect the farmers interests. The state argued that it has the right to utilise the share of Cauvery water for their development and irrigation facilities within the territory.

The state contended that the pre-independence agreements were signed under British colonial rule which did not consider the present realities of the state requirements. And also asserted that the waters must be shared based on the principle of equitable apportionment.

Laws and legal concepts discussed in the case

This case revolved around the dispute of Cauvery river water resource usage involving the interests of two states, i.e., Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The court took a close look at the laws involved and the facts of the case while delivering the resolution for the case.

Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956

This Act was enacted under Article 262 of Constitution of India to provide for the adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-state rivers and valleys. This Act stands as a cornerstone in India’s legal framework for water conflict resolution.

Section 3

The Section says that if it appears to the Government of any state that a water dispute with the Government of another state has arisen or is likely to arise by reason of the facts that the interests of the state, or of any of the inhabitants thereof, in the waters of an inter-state river or river valley have been or are likely to be affected prejudicially by any executive action or legislation taken or passed or proposed to be taken by the other state government or the failure of the other state or any authority for exercising any of their powers with respect to the use, distribution or control of such waters or the failure of the other state to implement the terms of any agreement relating to the use, distribution or control of such waters. The State Government may, as prescribed, request the Central Government to refer the water dispute to a tribunal for adjudication.

Hence, this Section provides power to the State Governments to lodge a complaint with the Central Government when they believe their interests are prejudicially affected by the actions of another state regarding the shared water resource. In this case, this provision was invoked by the Tamil Nadu Government in its complaint against the State of Karnataka.

Section 4

Section 4 of the Act says that when any request under Section 3 is received from any state Government in respect of any water dispute and the Central Government is of opinion that the water dispute cannot be settled by negotiations, the Central Government shall by notification in official gazette within one year time from the date of receipt of such request, constitute a water dispute tribunal for the water dispute adjudication. Provided that any dispute settled by a Tribunal before the commencement of the Inter State Water Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2002. The tribunal formed shall consist of a chairman and two other members nominated by the Chief Justice of India and the Central Government may in consultation with the tribunal, appoint two or more persons for the role of assessment for advising the tribunals proceedings.

Hence, this Section empowers the Central Government to establish a water dispute tribunal for adjudicating such disputes. In this case, this Section has given a legal basis for the constitution of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, a specialised body tasked with resolving long-standing conflict over the Cauvery River’s waters.

Section 5

Section 5 of the Act says when a tribunal has been constituted under Section 4, the Central Government shall, irrespective of the Section 8, simply refer the dispute to the tribunal for adjudication process. The tribunal then took it forward, investigated the matters referred to it and forward to the Central Government a report setting out the facts as found by it and giving its decision on the matters within a specified period.

If upon consideration of the tribunal decision, the Central Government or any state Government is of opinion that anything therein contained requires explanation or that guidance is needed upon any point not originally referred to the tribunal, the Central Government or the State Government as the case maybe, refer the matter to the tribunal for further consideration within three months from date of decision, and the tribunal have to send the report to Central Government within one year from the date of reference. Also it is mentioned that if the members of the tribunal differ in opinion on any point, the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority. Provided that, the period of 1 year within which the tribunal forwards the report to the Central Government, this time period can be extended by the Central Government, if they consider it necessary.

Hence, this Section provides a process of referring the water dispute to the tribunal. In this case, this Section has explained the scope of the dispute that the tribunal was empowered for adjudicating. This reference interpretation has become a key point of contention with the Supreme Court ultimately knowing that the tribunal has made errors in its narrow reading of the reference to this Section.

Section 11

As per this Section, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have or exercise jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to a tribunal under this Act. The most controversial aspect of this case is Section 11 which bars the jurisdiction of the courts over water disputes that may be referred to a tribunal under the Act. In this case, the court asserted its powers of interpretation of the Act and determining the scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction apart from the bars on its jurisdiction.

Inter-State River Water Disputes Rules, 1959

These rules are the ones framed under Section 13 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. These were made for providing procedures for water disputes tribunals functioning.

Constitution of India

The Constitution is the supreme law of India providing a framework for demarcating the fundamental basic code, powers, duties and procedures including that related to any water related disputes between the states.

Article 262

Article 262 provides for the right of Parliament to provide law for adjudication of disputes relating to the waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys. Also notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as referred to in the clause.

This article has provided a constitutional basis for the Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956, giving powers to Parliament to enact the laws for inter-state water related disputes. This article also empowers Parliament to exclude by law the court’s jurisdiction in respect of such disputes. In this case, article 262 has played a noteworthy role in backing up the formation of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.

Article 32

This Article provides the right to move to the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for enforcing the rights conferred. This article being the heart and soul of the Constitution of India, provides the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of any fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of India. In this case, Article 32 is referred to in the judgement to relate with the present case of Cauvery river water dispute. This Article provides for seeking redressal to their water sharing rights violation.

Interpretation of statutes

The interpretation of statutes means the correct understanding of the law. This process is commonly used by the courts to understand the exact intention of the laws and is used to ascertain the actual connotation of any act with the actual intention of the laws.

Incidental and ancillary powers

The incidental and ancillary powers implies the powers of the legislative body on a particular issue. It also involves the power of enacting on incidental and ancillary matters that are genuinely connected with the issues in the case.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India is the Apex Court. The Supreme Court of India has inherited the jurisdiction of the Central Court. The Supreme Court of India has original, appellate, advisory, and writ jurisdiction. Apart from this, the Supreme Court has power to review any judgement and is empowered to be an ultimate interpreter of the Constitution of India.

In this case, it has been under question whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide the scope of jurisdiction of a tribunal established under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.

Exclusion of jurisdiction

The jurisdiction is a power of authority under which a court can decide a matter as per the laws. In this case, Karnataka argued that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was excluded under the Constitution which provides for adjudication of inter-state water disputes constructed under the laws made by Parliament.

Maintainability of appeals against the tribunal orders

Maintainability of appeal means whether the appeal can be processed, and it depends upon various factors like applicable laws, type of the case, and specific circumstances of the appeal. This case deals with the question whether an appeal can be maintained before the Supreme Court against an order by the tribunal.

Cooperative federalism

This principle emphasises the importance of coordination, collaboration, and cooperation between the different government levels in implementation and development of the programs and policies. In the context of this case, this principle was invoked by Tamil Nadu to support its arguments about resolving disputes based on mutual cooperation with adherence to legal principles.

Equitable apportionment

This principle is used in resolving the inter-state water dispute. It suggests that water resources must be divided among the riparian states in a fair and equitable manner after considering the geography of the basin, population dependent on water, hydrology, water efficacy, economic needs, and its sustainability. In the context of this case, this principle is used by Karnataka to support its arguments for a larger share of the Cauvery River water resource.

Doctrine of prior appropriation

This doctrine is a legal principle governing the water rights allocation in various jurisdictions. It is often referred to as “first in time, first in right.” According to this doctrine, the first party who diverts the water from a water source and uses it for some benefit has the right to continue to use that amount of water thereafter. In this case, Tamil Nadu invoked this doctrine for supporting its claim to a larger share of the river and argued, saying that they had been using the Cauvery water for irrigation and other purposes for centuries before Karnataka. Thus, as per this principle, they have a right to continue usage of water as they were the first users of the Cauvery river.

Relevant judgements referred to in the case

Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Anr (1982)

This case decided by the Supreme Court bears a broad relevance to the Cauvery River Water Dispute case in terms of legal principles discussed, irrespective of the subject matter being different. This case dealt with the constitutional validity of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and the Apex Court upheld that, mentioning that there is protection available for such Acts under Article 31C and 39(b) of the Constitution and further, the court emphasised that there is a limited role of the judiciary for questioning policy and economic matters decided by the legislature. These legal principles discussed in the case are broadly relevant to the Cauvery river water dispute case.

Kehar Singh and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr (1989)

In this case, the scope of the President’s power for granting pardon under the Article 72 of the Constitution of India was discussed. The Supreme Court in this case held that the President while exercising its powers under Article 72 is also entitled to go into the merits of the case even if it was concluded by the Supreme Court judicially. These principles discussed in this case are broadly relevant to the Cauvery river water dispute for understanding the scope of executive powers and their amenability for judicial review.

Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppassna Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nalaurimal Padhugappu Sangam vs. Union of India & Ors. (1990)

In this case, the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to establish a Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal. The Cauvery water dispute case was built upon this case as foundation. Both these cases are integral to the long standing Cauvery river water dispute highlighting the complex legal issues involved in sharing water from Cauvery.

Dr. Babu Ram Saksena vs. The State (1950)

In this case, the issue of extradition and applicability of an old extradition treaty between the Tonk and the British Government after India’s independence and merger of Tonk into Rajasthan was discussed. Now after this situation, the Supreme Court has to determine whether this treaty still governs extradition matters or if the unified The Extradition Act, 1962 can be applied. The confusion was due to opinion that political changes and merger had made the old treaty no longer applicable and enforceable. This case is related to the Cauvery river water dispute case since both deal with the legal implications of pre-existing agreements or treaties.

H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji vs. Union of India (1970)

In the case, the validity of the President’s order derecognizing all rulers of the former princely states was discussed. The majority opinion was that the President’s order was unconstitutional as it violates the provisions of the Constitution of India which guarantees privy purses and privileges to the former rulers under the Article 291 and 362 of the Constitution of India. This case is related to the Cauvery river water dispute case since both are dealing with interpreting constitutional provisions related to pre-independence agreements and their validity in present time.

Judgement of the case

The present case arose from a long standing dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka regarding the sharing of water resources. For the issue of whether the court had jurisdiction for deciding the scope of powers of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal under the Act, the court held that it is the ultimate interpreter of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act and has the complete authority to decide powers, jurisdictions, and limitations of the tribunal.

Even if there is exclusion of jurisdiction enshrined by Article 262 of the Constitution, the court had the power to determine whether the tribunal had denied exercising its jurisdiction. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to lay down the frontiers of jurisdiction of the tribunal formed under the legislation or any related body organisation. This power is important for ensuring statutory bodies function within the limits of their authority and don’t exceed their jurisdiction.

For the issue of interim relief sought by Tamil Nadu, the court held that the tribunal has committed serious error in declaring that the interim relief is not covered under the reference made to it. The complaint had clearly mentioned immediate relief needed, but the tribunal erred in not understanding the adverse impact this is posing on the state. In light of the above circumstances and scenarios of the case, the court allowed the appeal which was filed and set aside the tribunal’s judgement directing it to decide the application for interim relief based on merits. The court also mentioned the importance of comprehensive and careful reference of disputes to the tribunal by the Central Government.

The court held that 1892 and 1924 agreements between the two states cannot be held to be inoperative or extinct, although these were governed by the principles after independence. Also, the principle of equitable apportionment has to be followed for resolving the water related dispute, considering the doctrine of equity. The water allocation for domestic purposes has to be placed on higher priority, and the water required for hydropower projects has lesser priority.

Both states were directed to take all necessary steps and measures for optimising water usage, minimising water waste, and ensuring sustainability. The appeal was disposed of finally in the above terms, and parties were to bear their own costs. Therefore, this judgement in the present case is a great contribution to the inter-state water disputes jurisprudence and statutory tribunals powers, functions, and jurisdiction.

After multiple judgements and orders, the Supreme Court in the year 2018 gave its final judgement allocating the 287.75 TMC water to Karnataka and 404.25 TMC water to Tamil Nadu. The court also emphasised the need to maintain a minimum environmental flow in the Cauvery river for protecting biodiversity and ecosystem. The government has been directed to form a Cauvery River Management Board to oversee the Cauvery river and handle all of its affairs.

Analysis of the case

This judgement by the Supreme Court is a significant ruling dealing with several important legal concepts and a careful balance between the statutory tribunals and constitutional powers of the court. The dispute arose between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for the sharing of water resources of Cauvery river.

Tamil Nadu alleged that Karnataka’s actions were adversely affecting its interest in using the Cauvery river. And for the same, Tamil Nadu sought help from the Central Government under the laws laid down in the Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956. In response, the Central Government established the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal for adjudicating disputes and referred the case also to it.

During the pendency of dispute, Tamil Nadu filed an application seeking interim relief from the tribunal. But, the tribunal held that it could not accept the applications for interim relief as it was not specifically referred to by the Central Government to it. Aggrieved by this decision of the tribunal, Tamil Nadu decided to approach the Supreme Court of India raising important concerns about the court’s jurisdiction to decide the scope of powers of the tribunal and interpretation of cases referred to it.

Recent judgement : State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Karnataka (2018)

In February 2018, the Supreme Court of India gave a long-standing judgement pertaining to the Cauvery water dispute and putting a halt to the age-old dispute between the four states, i.e., Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and the union territory of Puducherry.

At first, the court vigilantly began to address the issues, legality and validity of the contracts between the states i.e., the contract made between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in the years 1892 and 1924. The courts held that although the contract of 1924 expired according to its fixed term of 50 years, the states notably never announced the expiration of its validity of its term and kept implying its continuity even after the States Reorganization Act of 1956.

Pertaining to the applicability of Article 363 which bars the Supreme Court from interfering in certain matters, the Apex Court clarified that the conflicts involved in the current dispute did not have a bearing on the sovereignty and integrity of India, thus the article remains inapplicable.

In 2007, the tribunal passed the final verdict mentioning the share of water between the two states. There was a delay in publication of the award passed in the year 2007 which was passed in 2013 then by a two judge bench for overseeing the implementation of the final order. Both states expressed dissatisfaction with this final verdict and filed a review petition.

The state demanded re-negotiation of the settlement to ensure fair water resource allocation. Having been dissatisfied with the Cauvery water disputes tribunal’s final award in the year 2007, the state sought a review for water allocation and argued that the tribunal had not passed the decision based on a fair assessment and the present needs of both the states.

The learned counsel for the respondent further elaborated the facts, inter alia, that the obstruction in the development of dams and reservoirs (the water projects of the state) by Tamil Nadu resulted in large tracts of land to be left undeveloped, which further hindered the lives of the people of the state. He further objected to Tamil Nadu’s admission before the Cauvery Fact Finding Committee pertaining to the Samba crop cultivation that Tamil Nadu has deliberately downplayed no contribution of rainfall in their affidavit regarding the Samba crop. The learned counsel insisted upon his submission that share of the natural resources shall be equitable in terms of utilisation pertaining to its natural flow.

However, the Apex Court endorsed the tribunal’s approach in handling the dispute and focusing on equitable apportionment. In the year 2016, the Supreme Court asked Karnataka to release 15000 cusecs of water per day to Tamil Nadu. The court further asked Karnataka to re-consider the plea of Tamil Nadu for humanity and release water and also advised the parties to maintain harmony and peace. Karnataka, unsatisfied with the order passed, protested against the Supreme Court’s order.

Further, as the time passed, the dispute intensified. Karnataka often failed to release the water as stipulated. Thereafter, Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court multiple times raising concerns about Karnataka’s non-compliance with order passed by the tribunal. In addition to this, Tamil Nadu also contended that the respondent had allegedly constructed multiple dams surrounding Ponnaiyar river basin of Karnataka which were ultimately affecting the flow of river and resulted in severe livelihood of lakhs of farmers in various districts of Tamil Nadu.

In the year 2018, the Supreme Court pronounced a verdict while modifying the award of the tribunal on the matter allocating of water and additionally added 14.75 TMC of water to Karnataka increasing the total share by 284.75 TMC. Consequently, 404.25 TMC of water allotted to Tamil Nadu, 30 TMC of water to Kerala and 7 TMC of water to Puducherry, clearing all the pending cases and confusions. Also, mandated the constitution of Cauvery River Management Board under the official gazette. But even after this, the dispute continued and the parties occasionally kept on flaring up and protesting. Following this, the court also directed for a monthly release of water to Tamil Nadu.

The Apex Court’s ruling also sheds a limelight over the drinking water allocation to the city of Bangalore. While the tribunal limited the allocation of water to the city, the court disagreed with the approach of the tribunal and held that the drinking water needs cannot be measured on the basis of the territorial or geographical demarcations within the river basin.

Conclusion

The judgement by the Supreme Court in the present case is a significant ruling underscoring the important role of the judiciary in interpretation of statutes and determining the scope of powers of tribunals. The Supreme Court affirmed its authority to interpret the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and also to decide the powers, functions, jurisdictions, and limitations of the tribunals. The judgement laid down by the court can be a precedent for the similar nature of disputes in the future course of time and will ensure that disputes related to water resources are adjudicated in an efficient and fair manner.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Which Indian law governs the adjudication of inter-state water disputes?

The Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 provides for the adjudication of disputes related to inter-state water resources.

What was the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka leading to the case being filed in the Supreme Court?

The dispute was regarding the sharing of Cauvery river water between the two states. Tamil Nadu alleged that the Karnataka state actions prejudicially affected its interests and needs.

What is the main issue of this case which was raised before the Supreme Court of India?

The main issue raised was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to decide the scope of powers of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal under the law laid down by the Inter-state Water Disputes Act, 1956.

What did the tribunal hold regarding its power and jurisdiction for granting the interim relief?

The tribunal held that it could not entertain the interim relief applications as the water dispute related to the same was not specifically referred to it by the Central Government.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity