Cauvery case: Supreme Court reserves order on pleas

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on maintainability of appeals filed by Karnataka, Tamil nadu and Kerala challenging the 2007 final award of the Cauvery Wa-ter Disputes Tribunal on allocation of water to the contesting states and the Union Territory of Puducherry.

A three-judge bench of Justices Dipak Misra, Am-itav Roy and A.M. Kanwi-lkar reserved verdict after hearing attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi for the Ce-ntre, senior counsel Fali Nariman for Karnataka, Shekahr Naphade for Tamil Nadu, Jaideep Gupta for Kerala and Nambiar for Puducherry. The bench as-ked Karnataka to release 2,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu till the pronouncement of the verdict.

Mr Rohatgi told the bench the apex court cannot tou-ch the final award of the tribunal as it will have the same force of a decree of the apex court. He said the award has to be implemented by the states as there is no further appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Rejecting the submissions of Mr Nariman and Mr Naphade that once the award is passed by the tribunal the water dispute comes to an end, Mr Rohatgi said the fact that appeals have been filed by the states as they were not satisfied with the award, proves that the water dispute is still active.

The dispute will remain till the apex court decides on the appeals, he added. Mr Rohatgi, quoting a series of earlier judgments, said, “Somewhere we have to draw a line and pull the curtains down.”

He said since water is a sensitive issue, it is left to be determined by the tribunal and there is a bar on the Supreme Court to entertain appeals against the orders of the tribunal. As Parliament has enacted the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 as contemplated under Article 262 of the Constitution the apex court’s jurisdiction is eclipsed or ousted.

Mr Nariman contended that the jurisdiction of the apex court cannot be taken away by any provision of the Constitution. He said under Article 136, an appeal can be filed in the Supreme Court against any order passed by any court or tribunal in the country.

He told the Bench the tribunal on the water dispite was formed in 1990 while an amendment to the Inter State Water Disputes Act was made in 2002 to the effect that the final award will amount to a decree of the apex court. The amendment will have no effect on the tribunal prior to 2002, he added.

Mr Nariman said the purpose of assuming the award to be a decree is to make the award binding on the states and not to exclude the jurisdiction of the apex court.

Justice Misra said a law passed by Parliament cannot have an overriding effect on the powers of the apex court. If justice demands, the power under Article 136 of the Constitution (to file appeals in the apex court) can be exercised against any order passed by any authority.