1991 (4) TMI 449 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain appeals against the Tribunal's order.
2. Tribunal's jurisdiction to grant interim relief.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, representing Karnataka, argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the Tribunal's order based on Article 262 of the Constitution and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. Article 262(2) allows Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts in water disputes. Section 11 explicitly states that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction over water disputes referred to a Tribunal. The appellants, however, contended that their appeal was not about the merits of the water dispute but about the Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain interim applications. The Supreme Court held that it has the authority to interpret the provisions of the Act and determine the Tribunal's jurisdiction, thus rejecting the argument that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

2. Tribunal's Jurisdiction to Grant Interim Relief:
The Government of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry filed Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (C.M.Ps) seeking interim relief from the Tribunal, which were dismissed on the grounds that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief. The Tribunal held that it could only decide the disputes referred to it by the Central Government and that the Act did not confer any power to grant interim relief. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation. The reference made by the Central Government included all disputes emerging from Tamil Nadu's letter dated 6th July 1986, which explicitly mentioned the need for immediate relief due to Karnataka's actions affecting water flow. The Supreme Court concluded that the reliefs sought in C.M.P. Nos. 4, 5, and 9 of 1990 were within the scope of the reference made by the Central Government. Consequently, the Tribunal was directed to decide these petitions on merits.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's order dated 5.1.1991 was set aside. The Tribunal was directed to decide C.M.P. Nos. 4, 5, and 9 of 1990 on merits. The Supreme Court emphasized its role in determining the jurisdiction and powers of statutory bodies and tribunals. Justice Sahaij concurred with the decision but had reservations on other issues, which he did not elaborate on due to the agreement of Karnataka and Kerala to proceed with the interim applications on merits.