2006 (2) TMI 713 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in view of Article 262 and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.
3. Applicability of Article 363 of the Constitution.
4. Referral of disputes to Arbitration.
5. Safety concerns and environmental degradation due to raising the water level of the reservoir from 136 ft. to 142 ft.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956:
The contention that Section 108 is outside the legislative competence of Parliament as it falls under Entry 17 of the State List was rejected. The Supreme Court held that the power of Parliament under Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution is paramount and not subject to Article 246 and Lists II and III of the Seventh Schedule. Section 108, which continues agreements between predecessor States, is a supplemental, incidental, and consequential provision necessary for effectuating proper reorganization of States. The Court upheld the validity of Section 108, stating that the new State cannot unilaterally affect such agreements through legislation or executive action.

2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in view of Article 262 and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956:
The Supreme Court held that the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Kerala is not a 'water dispute' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. The dispute is about the safety of the dam on increasing the water level, not about the use, distribution, or control of inter-State river waters. Therefore, Article 262 and Section 11 of the Act do not bar the Court's jurisdiction in this matter.

3. Applicability of Article 363 of the Constitution:
The Court ruled that Article 363, which bars jurisdiction over disputes arising from treaties or agreements entered into before the Constitution, does not apply to ordinary agreements such as lease agreements for land and water use. The agreement in question continues under Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, and thus, the Court's jurisdiction is not barred.

4. Referral of disputes to Arbitration:
The arbitration clause in the lease deed was deemed irrelevant to the present dispute, which concerns the safety of the dam on raising the water level. The Supreme Court found no substance in the contention that the matter should be referred to arbitration, as the issue is not about the rights, duties, or obligations under the agreement but about the safety of the dam after strengthening measures.

5. Safety concerns and environmental degradation due to raising the water level of the reservoir from 136 ft. to 142 ft.:
The Court addressed the safety concerns by referring to various expert reports, which found the apprehensions of Kerala to be baseless. The reports indicated that the dam is safe and that raising the water level to 142 ft. would not jeopardize safety. The environmental impact was also examined, with reports suggesting that raising the water level would not adversely affect the flora and fauna but would instead improve the environment and wildlife habitat. The Court permitted Tamil Nadu to carry out further strengthening measures as suggested by the Central Water Commission (CWC) and restrained Kerala from causing any obstruction. The water level of the Mullaperiyar dam was allowed to be raised to 142 ft., and further strengthening of the dam was permitted.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, dismissed the applicability of Article 262 and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, and ruled out the relevance of Article 363 and arbitration. The Court permitted raising the water level to 142 ft., subject to further strengthening measures and cooperation from Kerala.