LexKACHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 583 KACHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2957 of 2013) JULY 15, 2013 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] Judicial Review - Of policy decision - Scope of - Held: A B · Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere with policy C decisioh - It can interfere with the policy only if ii is inconsistent with the constitutional provisions or is arbitrary or irrational - The Court does not have expertise to l;;w down policy for distribution of water within State - There being no judicially manageable standards for allocation bf water, it shall o be appropriate to leave it to be decided by the experts of the irrigation management system and water resources management. Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles - 38(2) a~d 39(b) - Decision of allocation of water within the State - Challenged E as having been taken in disregard to Arts.38(2) and 39(b) "'T Held: The challenge is misconceived. Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted to decide the lnt~r-State dispute for sharing of water of river F Narmada. The Tribunal after hearing the references of Union of India .and States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan, by its final award allocated Narmada water at Sardar Sarovar Dam site, to the different States. It allocated 9.00 Million Acre Feet (MAF) lll(ater to G the State of Gujarat,. against its claim for 20.73 MAF of water, which .included 6.57 MAF of water required for the District of Kutch. The State of Gujarat, out of the 9.00 MAF water, allocated 0.15 MAF of water. · 583 H " 584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 17 S.C.R. A The appellants aggrieved by the amount of water allocated to the Kutch district, filed Writ Petition (PIL), which was dismissed by the High Court. In appeal to this Court, the appellants inter alia 8 contended that allocation of amount of water to the District of Kutch was in disregard to the constitutional provisions u/Arts. 39(b) and 38(2). Dismissing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1. There is wide separation of powers between the different limbs of the State an,d, therefore, it is expected of this Court to exercise judicial restraint and not encroach upon the executive or legislative domain. What the appellants in substance are asking this Court 0 to do is to conduct a comparative study and hold that the policy of distribution of water is bad. The Court does not have the expertise or wisdom to analyse the same. It entails intricate economic choices and though this Court tends to believe that it is expert of experts but this E principle has Inherent limitation. True it is that the court is entitled to analyse the legal validity of the different means of distribution, but it cannot and will not term a particular 'policy as fairer than the other. The matters affecting the policy and requiring technical expertise be better left to the decision of those who are entrusted and F qualified to address the same. This Court shall step in only when it finds that the policy is inconsistent with the Constitutional laws or arbitrary or irrational. [Para 9] [592- F-H; 593-A] · G 2. The Court does not have the expertise to lay down policy for distribution of water within the State. It involves , collection of various data which is variable and many a ·times policy formulated will have political overtones. It may require a political decision with which the Court hlfs H no concern so long it is within the Constitutional limits. ' KACHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI Ir. STATE OF 585 . GUJARAT . Even if it is assumed that this Court has the expertise, it A will not encroach upon the field earmarked for the executive. If the policy of the Government, in the opinion of the sovereign, is unreasonable, the remedy is to disapprove the same during election. In respect of policy, the Court has very limited jurisdiction. A dispute shall not B be appropriate for adjudication by this Court when it involves multiple variable and interlocking factors, decision on each of which has bearing on others. [Para 1 O] [593-8-D] . 3. The State of Gujarat had emphasized the need of c more water for .the District of Kutch before the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal and projected all those pleas which have been projected be.fore this Court by the appellants, bul' the same did not find favour with the .Tribunal and the Tribunal allocated only 9.00 MAF wat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.