WATER DISPUTES

ARTICLE 262
 INTERSTATE WATER DISPUTE ACT 1956

• IT DEFINES ‘WATER DISPUTES’

• IT EXCLUDES SUCH DISPUTES FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT
• IT CONFERS A POWER UPON THE UNION GOVERNMENT TO CONSTITUTE
TRIBUNALS TO RESOLVE SUCH DISPUTES
PRINCIPLE FOLLOWED BY TRIBUNALS
• Principle of equity, which translates to an ‘equitable share of each State’
in the allocation of water

• In State of Andhra Pradesh v State of Maharashtra 2013, the Supreme

Court cited with approval, the US Supreme Court’s decision in
Washington v Oregon 1936, adopting the principle that a contest
between the States is to be settled in ‘a large and ample way that alone
becomes the dignity of the litigants concerned’,
STATE OF HARYANA V STATE OF PUNJAB
(2003)

• Matter For Construction on SYL Canal,

• Punjab Government did not discharged its liability of Construction.
• Punjab Government contested the filing of case in SC, as it is a Water
Dispute.
• Court Rejected the Contention
 STATE OF ORISSA V GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA 2009

• a difference had arisen between the two States relating to the diversion
of the water from the river into a side channel weir and a flood flow
canal,
• the question is whether these activities constituted a violation of an
agreement that had been arrived at between the two States, would
constitute a ‘water dispute?
• Can Supreme Court Grant Interim Relief?
• The bar under Section 11 of the Act will come into play once the Tribunal is
constituted and the water dispute is referred to the said Tribunal. Till then, the bar of
Section 11 cannot operate, as that would leave a party without any remedy till such
time as the Tribunal is formed, which may be delayed.
• Notwithstanding the powers vested by Section 9 of the Act in the Water Disputes
Tribunal to be constituted by the Union government under Section 4, which includes
the power to grant the interim order, this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
has ample jurisdiction to pass interim orders preserving the status quo till a Tribunal
is constituted which can then exercise its powers under Section 9
STATE OF TAMIL NADU V STATE OF
KARNATAKA 1991

• Can Supreme Court Exercise Jurisdiction after award is passed by

Water Tribunal?
• Thus, we hold that this Court is the ultimate interpreter of the provisions
of the Interstate Water Disputes Act, 1956 and has an authority to decide
the limits, powers and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under
the Act. This Court has not only the power but obligation to decide as to
whether the Tribunal has any jurisdiction or not under the Act, to
entertain any interim application till it finally decides the dispute
referred to it
RE NETWORKING OF RIVERS 2013

• The use of the expression ‘may’ in the Constitution does not indicate a clear
legislative intent, thus, it may be possible that Section 11 of the Act could refer
only to such disputes as are already referred to a Tribunal and which are
outside the purview of the Courts. Once a specific adjudicatory mechanism is
created, that machinery comes into operation with the creation of the Tribunal
and probably, then alone will the Court’s jurisdiction be ousted
STATE OF TAMIL NADU V STATE OF KERALA
2014

• Mullaperiyar Dam issue

• There is yet another facet that in federal disputes, the legislature
(Parliament and State legislatures) cannot be judge in their own cause in
the case of any dispute with another State. The rule of law which is a
basic feature of our Constitution forbids the Union and the States from
deciding, by law, a dispute between two States or between the Union and
one or more States.
• Counsel had contended that a petition under Article 32 was barred by
Article 262 (which submission was not accepted), even though there was
no such assertion in pleadings;

• A small part of the catchment lay in Tamil Nadu; and

• Kerala had pleaded but not adequately proved that the river is an inter-
State river. The Court, however, clarified that Tamil Nadu was not a
riparian State.