1990 (5) TMI 246 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in inter-State water disputes.
3. Obligation of the Central Government under Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution:

The petition was filed by a society representing agriculturists of Tamil Nadu, seeking a direction to the Union of India to refer the Cauvery water dispute to a tribunal and to restrain Karnataka from constructing dams and reservoirs. The State of Karnataka opposed the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the society was not entitled to file such a petition. However, the State of Tamil Nadu supported the petition, effectively joining the dispute. The Court observed that dismissing the petition on technical grounds would be unfair and unjust, given the support from Tamil Nadu and the prolonged nature of the dispute. Thus, the Court treated the petition as if Tamil Nadu were the petitioner, despite not formally transposing the parties.

2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Inter-State Water Disputes:

The Court acknowledged that the Cauvery is an inter-State river under Article 262 of the Constitution. Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, bars the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating disputes referable to a tribunal under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to enter upon the factual aspects of the dispute. However, it retained jurisdiction to consider the claim for referring the dispute to a tribunal under Section 3 of the Act.

3. Obligation of the Central Government under Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956:

Section 4 of the Act mandates the Central Government to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal if it is of the opinion that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiations. The Court noted that the dispute had been pending for over 20 years, with multiple unsuccessful attempts at negotiation, including 26 sittings involving the Chief Ministers of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The Court observed that the Central Government had ample opportunity to resolve the dispute but failed to do so. Given the prolonged nature of the dispute and the failure of negotiations, the Court concluded that the Central Government must be deemed to hold the opinion that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation. Consequently, the Court directed the Central Government to constitute a tribunal within one month to adjudicate the dispute, emphasizing the need for prompt action to prevent further escalation and bitterness among the States involved.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Central Government to notify the constitution of an appropriate tribunal for adjudicating the Cauvery water dispute within one month. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the Central Government's obligation under Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, to constitute a tribunal when negotiations fail to resolve the dispute. There was no order as to costs.