STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY versus P. K. SINHA AND ANR.

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 1127 · Decided: 18-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1127
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY v. STATE
OF T. N. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
v.
P. K. SINHA AND ANR.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No.  898 of 2018
In
Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007)
MAY 18, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Inter-State Water Disputes:
Supreme Court by judgment dated 16.02.2018, while
modifying the award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and
allocating waters of Cauvery river to the States of Tamil Nadu,
Karnataka and Kerala and Union Territory of Puducherry, directed
Central Government to frame a scheme u/s. 6A of Inter-State River
Water Disputes Act, 1956 – Central Government with a view to arrive
at a consensus for framing of the proposed Scheme, initiated
consultations with party States/Union Territory – To avoid further
litigation by the States, in respect of constitution and functions of
the proposed Board, Central Government filed interlocutory
application seeking certain clarifications – State of Tamil Nadu filed
contempt petition complaining about non-framing of the scheme by
the Central Government within a period of six weeks as granted by
Supreme Court – Another contempt petition was filed by private
party – Interlocutory applications were filed by State of Tamil Nadu
and Union Territory of Puducherry – Central Government produced
Draft Scheme before Supreme Court – Appropriateness of  Clauses
9(3)(i) and 9(3)(vii) as well as 9(3)(iii) in  the Draft Scheme was
questioned by State of Karnataka – State of Kerala contended that
effect of the Scheme would impinge upon the rights of the States in
respect of conservation and use of water which was exclusively a
State subject covered by Entry 17 in List II of Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution – Held: The fact that the subject of water forms
part of Entry 17 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, cannot be the
basis to whittle down the efficacy of the Award passed by the
1127
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 1127
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
Tribunal as modified by Supreme Court and in particular the Scheme
to ensure smooth, effective and efficient implementation of the Award
of the Tribunal as modified by Supreme Court – The Draft Scheme
has been drafted singularly for that purpose and the same will have
to be taken forward to its logical end in accordance with law with
promptitude – Award of the Tribunal qualifies the volume of river
water to be shared  and apportioned between the States – The parties
cannot be allowed to reopen the issues already settled in the Award
and as modified by Supreme Court, indirectly in the guise of
questioning the appropriateness of clause 9(3)(iii) in the Draft
Scheme – The Authority cannot be expected to issue directions
mechanically and that the Authority must have complete power to
enforce its directions so as to comply with the Award as modified by
Supreme Court – Draft Scheme is in consonance with the dictum
and directions in the Award and also in conformity with s. 6A of the
1956 Act – Draft Scheme to be taken to its logical and in accordance
with law – Contempt petitions and the IAs disposed of – Inter-State
Water Disputes Act, 1956.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil)
No. 898   of  2018 in Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2018 of this Hon’ble
Court in C. A. No. 2453 of 2007.
WITH
M.A. No.934/2018 in C.A. No. 2453 OF 2007
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1131 of 2018
M.A. No. 937/2018 in C.A. No. 2453 OF 2007
I.A. No.47065/2018, I.A. No.50562/2018 and
I.A. No.68455/2018.
K.K. Venugopal, AG, M. R. Naik, AG (Karnataka), Shekhar
Naphade, Rakesh Dwivedi, Subramonium Prasad, Shyam Divan, Jaideep
Gupta, A.S. Nambiar, Sr. Advs., G. Umapathy, C. Paramasivam,
K.V. Vijayakumar, Imtiaz Ahmed, Mrs. Naghma Imtiaz, Ahmed Zargham,
Ms. Amra Moosavi, Naresh Kumar (for M/s. Equity Lex Associates),
Mukesh Kumar Maroria, V. G. Pragasam, S. Wasim A. Qadri,
Mrs. Madhavi Divan, Rohit Bhat, Mohan V. Katarki, Brijesh Kalappa,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1129
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY v. STATE
OF T. N. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
R.S. Ravi, V. N. Raghupathy, Ranvir Singh, J.M. Gangadhar, Abdul
Azeem Kalebudde, G. Prakash, Jishnu M.L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash,
Mrs. Beena Prakash, Vijay Shankar V.L., S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,
S. Manuraj, P.K. Manohar, Mrs. Shanta Vasudevan, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was passed by
A. M. KH
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.