IMPORTANT POINT
The stand of Haryana that under the MOU Delhi was not entitled to any extra water is highly objectionable but contempt proceedings were closed as Haryana agreed to make available the courts ordered quantity of water to Delhi throughout the year SC Both the wazirabad and Hyderpur reservoirs shall remain full to their capacity from the water supplied by Haryana through river Jamuna.

ORDER

Water is a gift of nature. Human hand cannot be permitted to convert this bounty into a curse, an opperrion. The primary use ot which the water is put being drinking, it would be mocking the nature to force the people who live on the bank of a rive to remain thirsty, whereas others incidentlly placed in an advantageous position are allowed to use the water for non-drinking purposes. A river has to flow through some territory ; and it would be travesty of justice if the upper-riparian States were to use its water for purposes like irrigation, denying the lower riparian States the riparian States the benefit of using the water even for quenching the thirst of its residents.

2. The plight of residents of Delhi in not getting sufficient water even for drinking, led Commodore S.D. Sinha to approach this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by filing a public interest petition, which came to be registered as Writ Petition (C) No. 537 of 1992 seeking, inter alia, a direction to the concerned Governments to maintain regular flow of water, in Jamuna river so that the residents of Delhi do not face problem of drinking water, which, however, was being so faced because of non-release of sufficient quantity of water from Tajewala Head. As intricate questions of law were found to be involved, on the suggestion of the court, Commodore Sinha agreed to have the guidance and assistance of a senior lawyer through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee.

3. It is this which found Senior Advocate, Shri K.K. Venugopal before us. The learned counsel took pains to bring to our notice by referring to some decisions of the American Court, as well as to some writings, that drinking is the most beneficial use of water and this need is so paramount that it cannot be made su-serviant to any other use of water, like irrigation. So, the right to use of water for domestic purpose would prevail over other needs. It is because of this that it was contended that what has been stated in Article 262 of the Constitution dealing with adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-State river or river valleys, read with Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, could not exclude the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the grievance of the petitioner.

4. Shri Venugopal- in support of his contentions- relied upon high authorities of State of Connecticut vs. Commonwealth of Massachuhetts1, American Jurisprudence, Vol. 78 2d p. 293; and C.D. Harris vs. John Brooks2, We found plausibility in the contentions and were inclined to unfold new jurisprudential arena, despite strong objection to the same being taken by the State of Haryana, which came to be represented by its Advocate General, Shri H.L. Sibal, at a later stage. Shri Sibal pleaded in the alternative not to base our decision on the principle of law advanced by Shri Venugopal, as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between U.P., Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and National Capital Territory of Delhi, regarding allocation of surface flow of Jamuna, had come to be signed on September 12, 1994. The Advocate General urged that we may ask the concerned States to act as per the said MOU. We found merit in the submission and Shri Venugopal too raised no objection, and rightly. But, as to act according to the MOU required deliberation by Upper Jamuna River Board and as there was some difficulty in doing so because its membership could not be finalised; and as the summer months were fast approaching, a need was felt by us to give appropriate direction to take care of the hardship likely to be faced during those months.

5. This led us to pass order dated March 31, 1995. The operative part reads as below :

"After hearing the representatives of all the States concerned and the Union of the India and their learned counsel, we are of the view that the Board having been legally constituted, the Memorandum of Understanding has become executable under law. The State of Delhi which is in dire need of water