2016 Supreme(SC) 960

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2453 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2454 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2456 OF 2007
Decided On : 09-12-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Petition under Article 32 concerning disputes other than regarding use, distribution and control of water would be maintainable.
Dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter State river or river valley are referable to Tribunal.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in entertaining and adjudicating dispute or complaint is excluded under Article 262 r/w Section 11 of the 1956 Act.
A water dispute once adjudicated, loses the nature of dispute.
The party aggrieved by the Adjudication of the water dispute can always have his remedy under Article 136. Appeal by Special Leave in such matter is maintainable.
There is a distinction between having the same force as an order or decree of Supreme Court and passing of a decree by Supreme Court after due adjudication.
section 6(2) of Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction under Article 136.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 32 and 262 r/w section 11, Act, 1956 – Protection of fundamental rights – A dynamic concept – Need to balance with majority rule – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – Can be excluded by law made by Parliament under Article 262(1) – Act, 1956 bars exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 – Even then the Court can exercise the jurisdiction under certain circumstances – Petition under Article 32 concerning disputes other than regarding use, distribution and control of water would be maintainable. (Para 24, 25, 29)

       (2007) 2 SCC 1; (2009) 5 SCC 492; (2012) 4 SCC 51 – Relied upon

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 262 r/w section 11, Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 – Supreme Court having authority to decide limits, powers and the jurisdiction of the tribunal – Supreme Court obligated and empowered to decide as to whether the tribunal has any jurisdiction to entertain any interim relief till it finally decides the dispute referred to it – However, Supreme Court precluded from exercising jurisdiction to take cognizance of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter State river or river valley

        – Such disputes are referable to Tribunal. (Para 36, 37, 50)

       1993 Supp (1) SCC 96 (2); (1991) Supp (1) SCC 240; (2000) 9 SCC 572; (2002) 2 SCC 507; (2006) 3 SCC 643; (2008) 7 SCC 788; (2011) 13 SCC 344 – Relied upon

       (1990) 3 SCC 440 – Referred

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 262(1) r/w section 11 – Relate to a water dispute or complaint at the pre-adjudicatory stage – After adjudication by Tribunal, the controversy looses the characteristics of a ‘dispute’ – In such event jurisdiction of Supreme Court not ousted. (Para 53)

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 136 and Article 262 r/w Section 11 of Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in entertaining and adjudicating dispute or complaint is excluded under Article 262 r/w Section 11 of the 1956 Act. (Para 64)

       1955 (1) SCR 267 : AIR 1954 SC 520; (1965) 2 SCR 366; (1976) 2 SCC 917; (1979) (2) SCC 297; (1980) 3 SCC 141; (1995) Supp (2) SCC 539; (2005) 1 SCC 481; (2013) 2 SCC 114; (2016) 7 SCC 700; (2005) 6 SCC 211 – Relied upon

       (1957) 1 QB 574; (1969) 2 AC 147; (2000) 10 SCC 664; (2002) 4 SCC 388; (2010) 4 SCC 358; (1991) 4 SCC 584; (1997) 3 SCC 261; (1980) 3 SCC 625; (1992) 1 SCC 309; (2006) 8 SCC 212; (2016) 8 SCC 1; (1987) 1 SCC 362 – Referred

       (e) Words and Phrases – ‘Dispute’ and ‘adjudication’ – Dispute means a controversy having both positive and negative aspects – Assertion of a claim by one party and denial by the other – Act, 1956 gives the term dispute a wide meaning – Adjudication means legal process of resolving a dispute. (Para 65)

       (1979) 3 SCC 123; (2001) 1 SCC 43 – Relied upon

       (f) Constitution of India – Article 262 r/w section 11, Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and Article 136 – A water dispute once adjudicated, loses the nature of dispute – The party aggrieved by the Adjudication of the water dispute can always have his remedy under Article 136 – Appeal by Special Leave in such matter is maintainable. (Para 66)

       (g) Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 – Section 6(2) – Final order of Tribunal to have same force as the order or decree of Supreme Court – Distinction between having the same force as an order or decree of Supreme Court and passing of a decree by Supreme Court after due adjudication – Legal fiction not intended to travel beyond its purpose –The provision has to be narrowly construed – a (Para 69,

       (2012) 5 SCC 661; (2013) 4 SCC 280; (2014) 11 SCC 417; (1996) 2 SCC 449; AIR 1966 SC 1987 – Relied upon

       (h) Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 – Section 6(2) – Parliament not intending to create any kind of embargo on the jurisdiction of Supreme Court – Purpose of the legal fiction being to give binding effect to the award passed by the tribunal – Words “same force as on order or decision” – Cannot be treated as a decree for excluding jurisdiction of Supreme Court – Held, section 6(2) does not bar the jurisdiction under Article 136. (Para 76)

       Facts of the case:

       The matter relates to the Cauvery water dispute.

       These appeals have been filed by the States of Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu to assail the final order dated 05.02.2007 passed by the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.

       Finding of the Court:

       Petition under Article 32 concerning disputes other than regarding use, distribution and control of water would be maintainable.

       Dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter State river or river valley are referable to Tribunal.

       Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in entertaining and adjudicating dispute or complaint is excluded under Article 262 r/w Section 11 of the 1956 Act.

       A water dispute once adjudicated, loses the nature of dispute.

       The party aggrieved by the Adjudication of the water dispute can always have his remedy under Article 136. Appeal by Special Leave in such matter is maintainable.

       There is a distinction between having the same force as an order or decree of Supreme Court and passing of a decree by Supreme Court after due adjudication.

       section 6(2) of Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction under Article 136.

       Result: Civil Appeal by Special Leave assailing final orders of Tribunal is maintainable.