Holding

The Supreme Court held that it has jurisdiction to direct the Central Government to constitute a tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter‑State Water Disputes Act, despite the bar in Section 11, because the petition concerns the statutory duty to refer the dispute, not adjudication of the dispute itself.

Summary

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 respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Karnataka, opposed the petition on the ground of Section 11 of the Act, which bars court jurisdiction over disputes referable to a tribunal. The Supreme Court examined whether the petition was maintainable, given the statutory bar and the fact that the petitioner was a private society, noting that Tamil Nadu had joined the petition and effectively became the real petitioner. The Court held that the petition was essentially about the statutory duty of the Central Government to constitute a tribunal when negotiations have failed, a matter within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court directed the Central Government to notify, within one month, the constitution of an appropriate water‑disputes tribunal as mandated by Section 4, and allowed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether Section 11 of the Inter‑State Water Disputes Act, 1956, ousts the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to entertain a petition seeking reference of a water dispute to a tribunal.
Whether the petition filed by a private society is maintainable, especially after the State of Tamil Nadu joined the petition.
Whether the Central Government is statutorily obligated to constitute a tribunal under Section 4 when negotiations have failed.
Whether a mandamus can be issued against the State of Karnataka to restrain dam construction.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 262, s. 32
Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956s. 11, s. 3, s. 4

Subjects

inter‑state water disputeCauvery riverwater‑disputes tribunalSection 4Section 11Article 262riparian rightsmandamus

Judgment

TAMIL NADU CAUVERY NEERPPASANA A
VILAIPORULGAL VIV ASAYI GAL NALA URIMAI
'y
PADHUGAPPU SANGAM
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
B

MAY 4, 1990
--.
~
[RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND K.
RAMASWAMY, JJ.]
c
Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956--Sections 3, 4 & 11 Cauvery
Water Dispute-Government directed to constitute Tribunal.

The appellant is a registered society of agriculturists of Tamil
Nadu, who are entitled to riparian rights of Cauvery river in cultivating D
their lands over the years. It seeks from this Court that directions be
given to the Union of India Respondent No. 1 to refer the dispute
relating to the water utilization of the Cauvery river and equitable
distribution thereof in terms of section 4 of the Inter State Water
Disputes Act 1956. Also to issue a mandamus to the State of Karnataka
not to proceed to construct dam projects, reservoirs across the said E
/ river or its tributaries within the state and to restore supply of water to
_, the State of Tamil Nadu as envisaged in the agreements dated 18th
February, 1924. In this petition State of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu,
-;;::: ~ Kerala. and Union Territory of Pondicherry have also been added as
r Respondent No. 2 to S respectively. F

In the year 1970, the State of Tamil Nadu requested Union of
>- India to set up a Tribunal for settling the question of equitable distri-
bution of waters under sec. 3 of the Act. A suit was filed under Article
131 of the Constitution in this Court but was withdrawn on political
consideration so as to evolve a mutual and negotiated settlement. G

According to the petitioners it is submitted that several attem-
pts were made through bilateral and multlateral talks for a negotia-
.--t. led settlement but no solution could be reached and the· problem
continued. ·
H

83
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) 3 S.C.R.

~ The State of Karnataka filed several affidavits opposing the
maintainability of the petition and the Union of India has also opposed
the application on the basis of section 11 of the Act.

The petition was filed on November 18, 1983 and on 12.12.83 the
B Court directed issue of notice. The State of Tamil Nadu supported
and associated itself with the petitioner seeking the same relief on 6.5.87
the State also filed an affidavit in this Court supporting the contention
of the petitioner and also effectively joined the dispute by adopting the
stand of the petitioner.

C The mainstream of the river Cauvery has its origin in the hills of
Coorg. Some tributaries of the river have origin in the State of Kerala
-
and others in the State of Karnataka. The river flows for about 300
Kms. in the State of Karnataka and almost for an equal span within. ·~
the State of Tamil Nadu before joining the Bay of Bengal. It is an
D inter-state river as per Article 262, Entry 56 of List I of 7th Schedule of
the Constitution, so the regulation and development of the said river is
under the control of the Union oflndia and is declared by Parliament by
law to be expedient in the public interest.

Article 262 of the constitution provides for adjudication of
E disputes (1) with respect to the use, distribution and control of the
waters (2) Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme
Court or any other Court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any
such dispute as is referred to in clause (1).

As per section 3 of the Act if it appears to the Government of any
F
State that a water dispute with the Government of another State has
arisen or likely to arise and the interests of the State or of any of the
inhabitance, thereof are likely to be affected prejudicially, the State
Government in the prescribed manner request the Central Government
to refer the Water dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication.

Allowing the petitinn, this Court,

HELD: This dispute in question is one over which the people and
the State of Tamil Nadu have been clamouring for more than 20 years.
1
H The matter has been pending in this Court for the last 6'1.! years. It is on
C.N.V.V. SANGAM v. U.0.I. 85

record that over these years 26 sittings of the Chief Ministers of A
'°'" Karnataka, Tamil Nadu have been there and in some of these even the
Central .Ministers of Water Resources have also participated but have
not suceeded in bringing about negotiated settlement. No serious
attempt seems to have been made to have the dispute resolved. This
Court has given several adjournments to accommodate the attempts for B
negotiations because of the nature of the subject matter. Ultimately on
26.2.90 order by the Court was given that the Writ Petition would
--.. be listed for final hearing on 24.4.90 since sufficient opportunity and
'r time to these two states al the behest of the Central Government or
otherwise has been given to _arrive at negotiated settlement. On 26th
April 1990 the Union of India also informed the Court that Central
Government did not want to undertake any further negotiations and c
left the matter for the disposal by this Court. [89G-H; 90B-C; 9ID)

There was no reason for the dispute to protrect for such a long period.
Any further delay in taking statutorily mandated action is bound to
exasperate the feelings further and lead to more bitterness. [918; 92A] D

Section 4 of the Act indicates that on the basis of the request
referred to in Section 3, if Central Government is of the opinion that
water dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, It is mandatory for the
Central Government to constitute a Tribunal for adjudication of the
/ dispute. [92BJ E

The Central Government to fulfd the statutory obligation notify in
the official Gazette the. constitution of an appropriate tribunal for the
-<-..,- adjudication of the Water Dispute. The same should be done within a
·. period of one month. [92D I
F
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 13347 of 1983.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia).

K.K. Venugopal, C.S. Vaidyanathan and K.V. Viswanathan for
the Petitioner. G
P.K. Goswami,Additional Solicitor General, P.S .. Poti, K.
Parasaran, S.S. Javalai, and F.S. Nariman, B.V. Acharya, Advocate
.--' General, P.R. Ramasesh. Ms. A. Subhashini, T.T. Kunhikanan, V.
Krishnamurthy, K.. Ramkumar and R. Karuppan, in-person the
Respondents. H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 3 S.C.R.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This is an application under Article
32 of the Constitution filed by the Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana
Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimal Padhugappu Sangam which is
said to be a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Regis-
tration Act asking this Court for direction to the Union of India, B
respondent No. 1, to refer the dispute relating to the water utilisation
of the Cauvery river and equitable distribution thereof in terms of
section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and for a
mandamus to the State of Kamataka not to proceed with the construc-
tion of dams, projects and reservoirs across the "said nver and/or on
any of its tributaries within the State and to restore supply of water tQ
. the State of Tamil N adu as envisaged in the agreements dated 18th of
c
February, 1924. To the petition States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and
Kerala and the Union Territory of Pondicherry have been added as
respondents 2 to 5 respectively.

In the petition it has been alleged that the petitioner's society is D
an_organisation of agriculturists of Tamil Nadu and they are entitled to
the lower reparian rights of Cauvery river for cultivating their lands
over the years. The petitioner alleges that inflow into the Cauvery at
the Mettur dam point as also down the stream has considerably
diminished due to construction of new dams, projects and reservoirs
across river Cauvery and its tributaries by the State of Kamataka E
within its own boundaries. In the year 1970 the State of Tamil Naduhad
requested the Union of India to set up a tribunal and refer the question
of equitable distribution of Cauvery waters under section 3 of the Act.
A suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution by the Tamil Nadu
State in this Court was withdrawn on political consideration and in
anticipation of the evolving of a mutual and negotiated settlement. F
Petitions of the present type had also been filed in this Court being
writ petitions Nos. 303 and 304 of 1971 but on 24.7.75 they were
withdrawn on account of suspension of the Fundamental Rights during
the period of Emergency. Petitioner has further alleged that the
sharing of the Cauvery waters between the then Madras State and tho then
· princely State of Mysore was covered by a set of agreements reached in G
1892 and 1924. According to the petitioner several attempts were
made through bilateral and multilateral talks for a negotiated settle-
ment for equitable distribution of the Cauvery waters but no solution
could be reached and the problem continued. Sin.ce we are not on the
merits of the matter relating to distribution of waters it is unnecessary
to give any details of the further pleadings. H
C.N.V.V. SANGAM v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.J 87

The State of Kamataka by filing several affidavits has opposed
the maintainability of the petition as also the tenability of the plea for A
relief. The Union of India in the Ministry of Water Resources has also
opposed the maintainability of the application. Reliance has been
placed on s. 11 of the Act to which we shall presently made a
reference.
B
At the hearing, Mr. Nariman on behalfof the State of Kamataka
along with the Advocate General of the State and the Solicitor
General appearing for the Union of India have reiterated the aforesaid
stands.

The State of Tamil Nadu filed au affidavit in this Court on 6th of
May, 1987, wherein it not only supported the contention of the peti- c
tioner but effectively joined the dispute by adopting the stand of the
petitioner. The State of Kerala has left the matter to the good sense of
Union of India to bring about an amicable settlement. At the hearing
of the matter the Union Territory of Pondicherry was not represented
though we were told that their stand was common with that of the D
State of Tamil Nadu.

This petition was filed on Novembr 18, 1983; on 12.12.83 this
Court directed issue of notice and as already pointed out the State of
Tamil Nadu by its affidavit of 6th of May, 1987, came to the support
the petitioner in toto. The adoption by the State of Tamil Nadu of the E
petitioner's stand by associating itself with the petitioner is perhaps
total. Before this Court, societies like the petitioner as also the State of
Tamil Nadu and earlier applied for the same relief as the petitioner
'"°<.;-· seeks. In view of the fact that the State of Tamil Nadu has now
supported the petitioner entirely and without any reservation and the
Court'has.kept the matter before it for about 7 years, now to throw out F
the petition at this stage by accepting the objection raised on behalf of
the State of Kamataka that a petition of a society like the petitioner
for the relief indicated is not maintainable would be ignoring the actual
state of affairs, would be too technical an approach and in our view
would·be wholly unfair and unjust. Accordingly, we treat this petition
as one in which the State ofTamilNadu is indeed the petitioner though G
we have not made a formal order of transposition in the absence of a
specific request.

The main stream of river Cauvery has its origin in the hills of
Coorg. Some tributaries have their origin in the State of Kerala while
some having their origin in Kam>1taka have joined the river. The H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) 3 S.C.R.

river flows for a distance of about 300 Kms. within the State of
A Kamataka and almost an equal span within the State of Tamil Nadu
before it ultimately joins the Bay of Bengal. It has not been disputed
that Cauvery is an inter-State· river within the meaning of Article 262
of the Constitution. Entry 56 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution runs thus:
B
"56. Regulation and C:evelopment of inter-State rivers and
river valleys to the extent to which such regulation and
development under the control of the Union is declared by
Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest."

Article 262 provides:
c
"Ad.iudication 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 res-
pect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or
D in, any inter-State river u• river valley.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parlia-
ment 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
E (1)."

It is not disputed before us that the Inter-State Water Disputes
Act, 1956 (33 of 1956) is a legislation within the meaning of this
Article. ···?
'
F Section 3 of the Act provides:

"3. If it appears to the Government of any State that a
water dispute with the Government of another State has
arisen or is likely to arise by reason of the fact that the
interests of the State, or of any of the inhabitance thereof,
G in the waters of an inter-State river or river valley have
lleen, or are likely to be, affected prejudicially by-

(a) ..........

(b) ..........
H
(c) ....... ...
C.N.V.V. SANGAM v. U.0.1. (MISRA, J.J 89

the State Government may, in such form and manner as
may be prescribed, request the Central Government to A
refer the water dispute to a tribunal for adjudication."

Section 11 of the Act provides:

"11. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, B
neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have
or exercise jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute
which may be referred to a Tribunal under this Act.

It is thus clear that s. 11 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of all
courts including this Court to entertain adjudication of disputes which
are referable to a tribunal under s. 3 of the Act. Therefore, this Court c
. has no jurisdiction to enter upon .the factual aspects raised in the writ
petition.
-·
No serious dispute, however, has been raised before us challeng-
ing our jurisdicton to consider the claim in the writ petition confined to D
the question of a reference of the dispute to a tribunal within the
meaning of s. 3 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides: •

"4. (1) When any request under section 3 is received from
any State Government in respect of any water dispute and
the Central Government is of opinion that the water dis- E
pute cannot be settled by negotiations, the Central
Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette,
constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal for the adjudication.
of the water dispute.

(2) .......... F
;-
(3) .. . . . . . . . .
Undoubtedly s. 4 while vesting power in the Central Govern-
ment for selling up a Tribunal has made it conditional upon the form-
ing of the requisite opinion by the Central Government. The dispute in · G
question is one over which the people and the State of Tamil Nadu
have been clamouring for more than 20 years now. The matter has
.-1. been pending in this Court for more than 61h years. It is on record that
during this period as many as 26 sittings spread over many years have
been held in which the Chief Ministers of the Karnataka and Tamil
Nadu have unsuccessfully tried to bring about settlement; some of H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS t 1990] 3 S.C.R.

these have been at the instance of the Central Government in which
A
the Union Minister for Water Resources and others have participated.

There was a time, after the dispute arose, when the Govern-
ments in the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu as also at the Centre
were run by one common political party. Perhaps if the Centre had
B intervened in an effective way during that period there was consider-
able chance of settlement by negotiation. No serious attempt seems to
have been made at that time to have the dispute resolved and it has
been shelved and allowed to catch up momentum and give rise to
issues of sensitivity. This case after a number of adjournments freely
granted by this Court in view of the nature of the subject-matter, was
called on 26.2.1990 when the following order was made:
c
"The writ petition is adjourned to 24.4.1990 for final hear-
ing and is to be listed at the top of the board. No further
adjournment shall be granted.

D The Advocate Generals of the States of Karnataka
and Tamil Nadu are present in Court. Learned Solicitor
General is also present. Counsel in W.P. No. 13347/83
insists that the matter should not be further adjourned as
several adjournments on the same plea of reconciliation
between the two States have not borne any frnit. Learned
E Solicitor General has told us that in course of the month of
March, the Chief Ministers of the two States shall meet. He
has also told that in the month of February a meeting of
Chief Ministers of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and
Pondicherry had·been called but that could not be held on
account of the air eras~ at Bangalore. In these circumst-
F ances, leaving the parties to negotiate, we have decided
that the matter shall now be heard on merits in the event no
settlement takes place by then."

A long adjournment of about two months was then granted to provide
a further opportunity of negotiation. We have now been.told that the
G · two Chief Ministers met on the 19th of April, 1990, and a further
meeting was stipulated to be held on the following day when the
Minister of Water Resources of the Central Government was also to
participate. The meeting of the two Chief Ministers failed to bring
about any result and the meeting stipulated for the following day for
some reason or the other did not take place. When we heard the
H matter on the 24th of April, 1990, the counsel for the State of Tamil
C.N.V.V. SANGAM v. U.O.I. [MISRA, J.) 91
•
Nadu in clearest terms indicated that the Chief Minister of the State
was not further prepared to join the negotiating table. An affidavit A
")-•
along with the telex message received from Madras supporting its
stand has now been made a part of the record.

26 attempts within a period of four to five years and several more
adjournments by this Court to accommodate these attempts for nego- B
tiation were certainly sufficient opportunity and time to these two
States at the behest of the Centre or otherwise to negotiate the settle-
ment. Since these attempts have failed, it would be reasonable un-
doubtedly to hold that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiations.
, Yet, since the requisite opinion to be formed is of the Central
Government as required by s 4 of the Act when we reserved judgment
on the 24th of April, 1990, we allowed two days' time to the learned c
Additional Solicitor General for the Central Government to report to
the Court the reaction of the Ctntral Government. Mr. Goswami,
-. learned Additional Solicitor General anpearing for the Union of India
informed us on the 26th April, 1990, in the presence of the counsel for
the other parties that the Central Government did not want to under- D
take any further negotiation and left the matter for disposal by the
Court. In these circumstances, we have no option but to conclude that
a clear picture has emergd that settlement by P""otiation cannot be
arrived at and taking the developments in the matter as indicated
above it must be held that the Central Government is also of that
opinion particularly when the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has indi- E
cated that he is no more prepared to 1oin the negot1at10ns.

We are cognizant .of the fact that the matter is a very sensitive
one. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the Government at
the Centre is by one -political party while the respective Governments
in the two States are run by different .political parties. The dispute F
involved is, however, one which affects the southern States of Kerala,
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu·and the Union Territory of Pondicherry.
The disputes of this nature have the potentiality of creating avoidable
feelings of bitterness among ihe peoples of the States concemed. The
longer the disputes linger, more the bitterness. The Central Govern-
ment as the guardian of the interests of the people in all the States G
must, therefore, on all such occasions take prompt steps to set the
Constitutional machinery in motion. Fortunatdy ,,the Parliament has
by enacting the law vested the Central Government with the power to
resolve such disputes effectively by referring the matter to an impartial
Tribunal. The.re was no reason, therefore, for the dispute to protract
for such a l~ng time. Any further delay in taking the statutorily H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) 3 S.C.R.

A mandate action is bound to exasperate the feelmgs further and lead to
more bitterness. It is, therefore, necessary that the legal machinery
provided by the statute is set in motion before the dispute escalates. A
stitch in time saves nine. What is true for an individual is perhaps more
true for the nation.
B Section 4 indicates that on the basis of the request referred to in
s. 3 of the Act, if Central Government is of the opinion that the water
dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, it is mandatory for the
Central Government to constitute a Tribunal for adjudication of the
_-,
dispute. We were shown the Bill where in s. 4 the word 'may' wa1
used. Parliament, however, substituted that word by 'shall' in the Act.
c Once we come to the conclusion that a stage has reached when the '
Central Government must be held to be of the opinion that the water
dispute can no longer be settled by negotiation, it thus becomes its
obligation to constitute a Tribunal and refer the dispute to it as stipu·
lated under s. 4 of the Act. We therefore, direct the Central Govern-
ment to fulfil its statutory obligation and notify in the official gazette
D the constitution of an appropriate tribunal for the adjudication of the
water dispute referred to in earlier part of this j11dgment. We further
direct that the same should be done within a period of one month from
today. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall, however,
be no order as to costs.

E S.B. Petition aliowed.