Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956

The Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking and Commodore S. D. Sinha filed a public‑interest petition under Article 32 seeking a direction that the upstream states release sufficient water in the Jamuna River for Delhi's drinking needs. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties, issued an interim order d…

The State of Andhra Pradesh filed a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking to restrain Maharashtra from constructing the Babhali barrage within the water spread area of Andhra's Pochampad dam and from drawing water from it. The dispute centered on the interpretation of the 6 October 1975 water‑sharing agree…

The President of India made a reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution seeking the Supreme Court's opinion on whether auction is the only permissible method for disposal of all natural resources, following the Court's judgment in the 2G case which had quashed spectrum licenses and directed auction. The Court …

The State of Himachal Pradesh sued the Union of India and five other parties seeking its share of electricity generated by the Bhakra‑Nangal and Beas hydro‑electric projects, claiming entitlement based on the submergence of its territory and the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The Court examined whether the suit was b…

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition filed by the Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum seeking to set aside the 1886 lease agreement and related provisions, and to prevent the raising of the Mullaperiyar Dam water level beyond 136 ft. The Court held that Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, …

The Government of Tamil Nadu complained to the Centre that Karnataka was impounding Cauvery waters in violation of inter‑State agreements, prompting the Central Government to constitute the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal under the Inter‑State Water Disputes Act, 1956. While the Tribunal was hearing the dispute, Tamil …

The President referred three questions to the Supreme Court concerning the Cauvery water dispute, the Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance (later Act No.27 of 1991), and the powers of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal. The Court held that the Karnataka Ordinance was ultra vires the Constitution bec…

The Supreme Court examined a public‑interest writ petition challenging the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River. The petitioners argued that the environmental clearance granted in 1987 was invalid, that the height of the dam should be reduced, and that the relief and rehabilitation measures for d…

The Supreme Court considered a contempt petition (Civil) No. 225 of 2013 filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Chief Minister of Karnataka and others, arising out of the inter‑state Cauvery water dispute. The petition sought to hold the respondents in contempt for allegedly violating the earlier judgment in Civi…

The Supreme Court adjudicated appeals against the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's 2007 award allocating waters of the inter-State river Cauvery among Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry. The Court upheld the Tribunal's adoption of the principle of equitable apportionment as recognized in international rules…

The Kachchh Jal Sankat Nivaran Samiti filed a public‑interest writ petition challenging the Gujarat government's allocation of water from the Sardar Sarovar Project to the Kutch district, alleging violation of Articles 39(b) and 38(2) of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the allocati…

The Supreme Court examined applications by project‑affected families (PAFs) from Madhya Pradesh seeking rehabilitation benefits under the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) award after the Sardar Sarovar Dam was raised to 110 metres. The petitioners argued that both permanently and temporarily affected families, as…

After the bifurcation of Punjab in 1966, the Government of India allocated 3.5 MAF of Ravi‑Beas water to Haryana under a 1976 notification. Haryana could not draw its share through the existing Bhakra Main Line Canal and therefore proposed the Sutlej‑Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal, completing its portion in 1980 while Punjab …

The case examined whether a sitting High Court judge appointed as President of a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission could continue to function as a judge. A group of advocates challenged the appointment, arguing it created a master‑servant relationship and threatened judicial independence, while the governmen…

The Supreme Court was asked by the President, under Article 143, to opine on the constitutional validity of the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, which sought to terminate the 1981 Punjab‑Haryana‑Rajasthan water‑sharing agreement and nullify Supreme Court decrees ordering completion of the Sutlej‑Yamuna Link …

The State of Orissa filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking the constitution of a Water Disputes Tribunal and an interim injunction against the State of Andhra Pradesh, which was constructing a side‑channel weir and flood‑flow canal on the Vansadhara river despite a 1994 agreement to share the river’s waters equ…

The Supreme Court upheld a 2002 decree that mandated the State of Punjab to complete the Sutlej‑Yamuna Link (SYL) canal within one year, directing the Union of India to intervene if Punjab failed. Punjab’s subsequent suit challenging the decree, the constitutionality of Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966…

The C.N.V.V. Sangam, a society of Tamil Nadu agriculturists, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a direction to the Union of India to refer the Cauvery water dispute to a tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter‑State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and a mandamus restraining Karnataka from constructing dams. The res…