STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY versus STATE OF T. N. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [DIPAK MISRA, CJI] 829 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARYSTATE OF TAMIL NADU BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 16-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 28 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY v. STATE
OF T. N. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
829
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007)
FEBRUARY 16, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND
A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
Inter-State Water Disputes:
Water dispute raised by State of Tamil Nadu – Against State
of Karnataka – Alleging that the executive action taken by State of
Karnataka in constructing  Kabini, Hemavathi, Harangi, Swrnavathi
and other projects has affected the interest of the State of Tamil
Nadu in the waters of  Cauvery, an inter-State river – Also alleged
that the executive action were in violation of agreements entered
into between the erstwhile Madras Presidency and State of Mysore
in the years 1892 and 1924 – Central Government referred the
dispute to Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal – Claims also raised
by State of Kerala to the waters of river Cauvery on account of the
areas transferred to it from the State of Madras after State
Reorganization Act, 1956 – Claim by Union Territory of Puducherry
in the waters of Cauvery river since it was located within Cauvery
basin and seven branches of Cauvery did flow through the said
region – Tribunal held the agreements of 1892 and 1924 as valid
and determined the utilisable quantum of waters of the Cauvery to
be 740 thousand Million Cubic Feet (TMC) – The Tribunal allocated
the waters of Cauvery, following the principle of equitable
apportionment – It allocated 419 TMC to State of Tamil Nadu, 270
TMC to State of Karnataka 30 TMC to State of Kerala and 7 TMC
to Union Territory of Puducherry – In addition, the Tribunal
reserved 10 TMC for environmental protection and 4 TMC for
inevitable escapages into the sea – Aggrieved by allocation of
sharing of waters of Cauvery awarded by the Tribunal, appeals by
way of SLP were filed by the States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and
Kerala – Held: Waters of an inter-State river passing through
corridors  of the riparian States constitute a national asset and no
single State can claim exclusive ownership of its water – Principle
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 829
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
of equitable apportionment internationally recognized by the
Helsinki Rules, Compione Rules and Berlin Rules which have also
been incorporated in 1987 and 2002 National Water Policies, have
been regarded to be the guiding factors for resolving disputes qua
apportionment of waters of an inter-Sate river – The Tribunal was
correct in its approach – Tribunal correctly determined the irrigated
area of Tamil Nadu – Allocation of water to Tamil Nadu for domestic
and industrial purposes and allocation of water to Kerala and
Puducherry also requires no interference – Reservation of 10 TMC
for environment protection and 4 TMC for inevitable escapages
into sea also does not need any interference – However, the
admission of facts and empirical data suggests that around 20 TMC
of water is available in Tamil Nadu which has not been taken into
account by the Tribunal – Therefore, keeping in view the risks
associated with over-extraction  of groundwater, 10 TMC of the
available groundwater in Tamil Nadu to be taken into account for
final determination of State of Tamil Nadu – Tribunal has also
drastically reduced the share of Karnataka towards Domestic and
Industrial purpose – Therefore, 4.75 TMC is awarded to Karnataka
for this purpose – Thus, it would be appropriate to award to the
State of Karnataka an additional 14.75 TMC (10 TMC on account
of availability of groundwater in the State of Tamil Nadu and 4.75
for domestic and drinking purposes) – Inter-State Water Disputes
Act, 1956 – ss. 3 and 5.
Inter-State Water Disputes:
Water Dispute – Between States of Tamil Nadu and
Karnataka – Pertaining to waters of Inter-State river Cauvery –
Complainant State (State of Tamil Nadu) inter-alia alleged that the
executive action of State of Karnataka (affecting the interest of
State of Tamil Nadu) was in violation of the agreements entered
into,  in the years 1892 and 1924 between the erstwhile State of
Mysore and Madras Presidency, in respect of distribution of waters
of Cauvery river – State of Karnataka questioned the validity of
the agreements on the ground of applicability of doctrine of
paramountcy; and on the ground of unconscionability of the
agreements – On appeal, held: After coming into force of Indian
Independence Act, 1947, doctr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.