PRESIDENT OF INDIA Vs. CAUVERY WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On July 27, 1991 the President, under Article 143 of the Constitution, referred to this Court three questions for its opinion. The Reference reads as follows:

(2.) The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") commenced its first sitting on 20th July, 1990. On that day, Tamil Nadu submitted a letter before the Tribunal seeking interim reliefs. The Tribunal directed Tamil Nadu to submit a proper application. Thereupon Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry submitted two separate applications for interim reliefs being CMP Nos. 4 and 5 of 1990. The interim relief claimed by Tamil Nadu was that Karnataka be directed not to impound or utilise water of Cauvery river beyond the extent impounded or utilised by them as on 31-5-1972, as agreed to by the Chief Ministers of the basin States and the Union Minister for Irrigation and Powers. It further sought passing of an order restraining Karnataka from undertaking any new projects, dams reserviors, canals and/or from proceeding further with the construction of projects, dams, reservoirs canals etc. in the Cauvery basin. In its application for interim relief Pondicherry sought a direction from the Tribunal both to Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to release the water already agreed to, i.e., 9.355 TMC during the months of September to March. The Tribunal considered simultaneously both the applications for interim reliefs as well as the procedure governing the trial of the main dispute. It directed the disputant States to file their pleading by way of statements of cases and also required the States of Karnataka and Kerala to submit their replies to the applications for interim reliefs made by Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. By September, 1990, all the disputant States submitted their first round of pleadings or statements of cases. By November, 1990, Karnataka and Kerala also submitted their replies to the applications for interim reliefs. The Tribunal gave time to the States to submit their respective counter statements in reply to the statements of cases filed earlier in the main dispute. It appears that before the disputant States submitted their counter-statements in the main dispute, the Tribunal heard the applications for interim reliefs since Tamil Nadu had, in the meanwhile, filed an application being CMP No. 9 of 1990 as an urgent petition to direct Karnataka as an emergent measure, to release at least 20 TMC of water as the first instalment, pending final orders on their interim application CMP No. 4/ 90. It appears that this application was filed on the ground that the samba crop could not be sustained without additional supplies at Mettur reservoir in the Tamil Nadu State. Besides contesting the application on merits, both Karnataka and Kerala raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the said application and to grant any interim relief. The preliminary objection was that the Tribunal constituted under the Act, had a limited jurisdiction. It had no inherent powers as an ordinary Civil Court has, and there was no provision of law which authorised or conferred jurisdiction on the Tribunal to grant any interim relief. The Tribunal heard the parties both on the preliminary objection as well as on merits, and by its Order of January 5, 1991, held, among other things, as follows:-

(3.) Being aggrieved, the State of Tamil Nadu approached this Hon'ble Court by means of special leave petitions under Art. 136 of the Constitution against the orders passed both in the original application for interim relief being CPM No. 4 of 1990 as well as in the application for urgent interim relief being CMP No. 9 of 1990. So did the Union Territory of Pondicherry against the order passed by the Tribunal in its application for interim relief being CMP No. 5 of 1990. These special leave petitions which were later on converted into Civil Appeals Nos. 303-04 of 1991 and Civil Appeal No. 2036 of 1991 respectively were heard together and disposed of by this Court by its judgment dated April 26, 1991. While allowing the appeals this Court held as follows (paras 15 and 21):