Article 131 – Supreme Court under article 131 of the constitution has original jurisdiction in any dispute –
between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or
between the Government of India and one or more States; or
between two or more States,
Distribution or control of water of any interstate rivers and river valleys
parliament has passed the River Board Act. 1956 and the Inter-state water disputes act, 1956.
disputes would arise regarding sharing of river-waters as water of inter-state would pass through several states.
Such water cannot be regarded as belonging to any single riparian state.
no state can claim exclusive ownership of such waters.
no state can claim legislative power beyond its territory.
constitution confers the legislative over such rivers on the parliament.
Article 262 – Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-State rivers or river valleys. (1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication 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 (2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1).
Art. 262 provides therein may be excluded by the parliament from the purview of the Supreme Court.
Water is a state subject as per Entry 17, List II of the Constitution.
The river Boards Act, 1956 was enacted by the parliament under entry 56, List I.
To advise the governments – integrated on any matter relating to the regulation or development of a specified river or river valley.
To advise them to resolve their dispute by co-ordination of their activities and so on.
Under Act 262 the parliament has also enacted, the interstate water dispute act 1956 empowers the (intra) Government to setup a Tribunal for the adjudication of such disputes.
The decision of tribunal shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute.
Neither the supreme court nor any other court shall have the jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be returned to such a Tribunal under that Act.
Cauvery water Disputes Tribunal – was appointed by the central government to decide:
question of waters of river Cauvery which flows through the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
Tribunal gave an interim order in June 1991 directing the state of Karnataka to release a particular quantity of water for the state of TamilNadu.
The Karnataka government resented the decision promulgated an ordinance empowering the government not to honour an interim order of the Tribunal.
The Tamil Nadu government protested against the action of the Karnataka Government.
the reference was made by the president to the Supreme Court.
The court held that the Karnataka Ordinance was unconstitutional – as it nullifies the decision of the Tribunal.
The supreme court criticized the Karnataka Act. as being against the basic tenets of the rule of law
State of Hariyana V/s State of Punjab –
There was an agreement between the states of Punjab and Hariyana to share the water of River Sutlej.
The Punjab Government was to construct the SutlejYamuna link canal to carry this water to the state of Haryana but it defaulted in doing so.
The state of Haryana filed a suit against the state Punjab under Art. 131 of the constitution to pass a decree directing the Punjab Government to construct the canal.
The Punjab Government objected to the suit pleading that it was barred by the Inter-state water Dispute-Act.
The Supreme Court negative the contention arguing that there was no water-dispute between the States as they had already agreed to share the water.
The question was regarding the obligation of Punjab Government to construct the canal as a part of the agreement between the two states.
The court directed the Punjab Government to fulfill its obligation by completing the canal within a year.
