LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 499
STATE OF KARNATAKA
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2453 of2007)
DECEMBER 09, 201_6
[DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY AND
A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
A
B
Constitution of India - Arts. 262(2), 131, 136 - Inter-State
River Water Dispute - Adjudication of - Jurisdiction of Supreme
Court - Order passed by the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal on
C
sharing of river water - Challenge to -Appeals by special leave u/
Art. 136 filed by the States of Karnataka, Kerela and Tamil Nadu
before this Court - Plea that Art. 262(2) read with s. 11 ands. 6 of
the 1956 Act bars the jurisdiction of this Courtto adjudicate upon
any water dispute - Held: Appeals by States of Karnataka, Kerela
and Tamil Nadu are maintainable - Supreme Court has jurisdiction D
to hear the appeals - Once a water dispute, as defined u!Art. 262(1)
read with provisions of the 1956 Act is adjudicated by the tribunal,
it loses the nature of dispute - Person aggrieved can always have
his remedy invoking the jurisdiction u/Art. 136 - Founding fathers
did not want the award or the final order passed by the tribunal to
remain immune from challenge - That is neither the express language
E
of Art. 262(1) nor it is impliedly stated - Also, the legislative
intendment of s. 6(2) is clear that the Parliament did not intend to
create any kind of embargo on the jurisdiction of this Court - Section
6 cannot be interpreted in an absolute mechanical manner and the
words "same force as on order or decision" cannot be treated as a
F
decree for the purpose for excluding the jurisdiction of this
Court - Thus, on basis of the exposition of the principles of law
relating to fiction, the intendment of th{! legislature and the ultimate
purpose and effect of the provision, s. 6(2) does not bar the
iurisdiction conferred on this Court u!Art. 136 - Inter-State River
Water Disputes Act, 1956 - ss. 2(c), 6(2), 11.
~
G
Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 - ss. 11, 2(c),
6(2) - Inter-State River Water Dispute - Issuance of interim order
whereby the State of Karnataka directed to release 2000 cusecs of
water to State of Tamil Nadu, to continue.
499
H
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
A
Ad.iourning the matter, the Court
B
c
D
E
F
HELD: 1.1 Various Articles occurring in Part III of the
Constitution of India have been bestowed the extended meaning
through iµterpretative process to fructify the constitutional
obligations because the provisions in the Constitution have to
be understood and interpreted keeping in view the social
progress, economic growth of environment of law and the global
development oflaw. Protection offundamental rights as a concept
cannot remain .static. They grow by encompassing a rainbow of
views that advocate new rights that the globe perceives. But the
authority conferred under Article 32 has its limitations when the
lis under Article 262 emerges. It is interesting to note that the
Constitution has not provided machinery for resolution of the
disputes in the Constitution but has empowered the Parliament
to make laws to provide to exclude the power of the Supreme
Court or any other court with regard to jurisdiction in respect of
complaints or disputes that find mention in Article 262(1). The
Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 bars the exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. In spite of the
same, there is certain scope for exercise of jurisdiction. Article
262 is a ·part of the original Constitution and, therefore, the
question posed is whether the framers of the Constitution have
used the express vehicle of language in this Article so as not to
. bestow any power on the courts including the Supreme Court. ·
[Paras 25, 34) [523-C-F; 531-C]
·
1.2 Section 5 provides for adjudication of water disputes.
Section 11 stipulates that neither the Supreme Court nor any
other Court shall have or exercise jurisdiction in respect of any
water dispute which may be referred to a tribunal under the 1956
Act. The tribunal is constituted when a request is made under
Section 3 from any State Government in respect of any water
dispute. Section 4 of the 1956 Act provides that the Central
G Government shall constitute a Water Disputes Tl"ibunal if it is of
the opinion that the water dispute cannot be settled by
negotiations. The 1956 Act is in consonance with Article 262 which
empowers the Parliament to provide that neither the Supreme
Court nExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.