TAMIL NADU CAUVERY NEERPPASANA VILAIPORULGAL VIVASAYIGAL NALA URIMAI PADHUGAPPU SANGAM versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 83 · Decided: 04-05-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'y 
--. 
~ 
TAMIL NADU CAUVERY NEERPPASANA 
VILAIPORULGAL VIV ASA YI GAL NALA URIMAI 
PADHUGAPPU SANGAM 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 4, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND K. 
RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956--Sections 3, 4 & 11 Cauvery 
Water Dispute-Government directed to constitute Tribunal. 
The appellant is a registered society of agriculturists of Tamil 
Nadu, who are entitled to riparian rights of Cauvery river in cultivating 
their lands over the years. It seeks from this Court that directions be 
given to the Union of India Respondent No. 1 to refer the dispute 
relating to the water utilization of the Cauvery river and equitable 
distribution thereof in terms of section 4 of the Inter State Water 
Disputes Act 1956. Also to issue a mandamus to the State of Karnataka 
not to proceed to construct dam projects, reservoirs across the said 
/ 
river or its tributaries within the state and to restore supply of water to 
_, 
the State of Tamil Nadu as envisaged in the agreements dated 18th 
February, 1924. In this petition State of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, 
-;;::: ~ Kerala. and Union Territory of Pondicherry have also been added as 
r 
Respondent No. 2 to S respectively. 
In the year 1970, the State of Tamil Nadu requested Union of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
>-
India to set up a Tribunal for settling the question of equitable distri-
bution of waters under sec. 3 of the Act. A suit was filed under Article 
131 of the Constitution in this Court but was withdrawn on political 
consideration so as to evolve a mutual and negotiated settlement. 
G 
According to the petitioners it is submitted that several attem-
pts were made through bilateral and multlateral talks for a negotia-
.--t. 
led settlement but no solution could be reached and the· problem 
continued. · 
83 
H 
84 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990) 3 S.C.R. 
~ 
The State of Karnataka filed several affidavits opposing the 
maintainability of the petition and the Union of India has also opposed 
the application on the basis of section 11 of the Act. 
The petition was filed on November 18, 1983 and on 12.12.83 the 
B 
Court directed issue of notice. The State of Tamil Nadu supported 
and associated itself with the petitioner seeking the same relief on 6.5.87 
the State also filed an affidavit in this Court supporting the contention 
of the petitioner and also effectively joined the dispute by adopting the 
stand of the petitioner. 
C 
The mainstream of the river Cauvery has its origin in the hills of 
Coorg. Some tributaries of the river have origin in the State of Kerala 
and others in the State of Karnataka. The river flows for about 300 
Kms. in the State of Karnataka and almost for an equal span within. ·~ 
the State of Tamil Nadu before joining the Bay of Bengal. It is an 
D inter-state river as per Article 262, Entry 56 of List I of 7th Schedule of 
the Constitution, so the regulation and development of the said river is 
under the control of the Union oflndia and is declared by Parliament by 
law to be expedient in the public interest. 
Article 262 of the constitution provides for adjudication of 
E 
disputes (1) with respect to the use, distribution and control of the 
waters (2) Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme 
Court or any other Court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any 
such dispute as is referred to in clause (1). 
F 
As per section 3 of the Act if it appears to the Government of any 
State that a water dispute with the Government of another State has 
arisen or likely to arise and the interests of the State or of any of the 
inhabitance, thereof are likely to be affected prejudicially, the State 
Government in the prescribed manner request the Central Government 
to refer the Water dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication. 
Allowing the petitinn, this Court, 
HELD: This dispute in question is one over which the people and 
the State of Tamil Nadu have been clamouring for more than 20 years. 
1 H 
The matter has been pending in this Court for the last 6'1.! years. It is on 
-
C.N.V.V. SANGAM v. U.0.I. 
85 
record that over these years 26 sittings of the Chief Ministers of 
'°'" Karnataka, Tamil Nadu have been there and in some of these even the 
Central .Ministers of Water Resources have also participated but have 
not suceeded in bringing about negotiated settlement. No serious 
attempt seems to have been made to have the dispute resolved. This 
Court has given several adjournments to accommodate the at
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.