CASE ANALYSIS

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

V

UNION OF INDIA
2011 (11) SCALE 144.

SUBMITTED BY:
GAURAV SINGH
12A044

1
 CONTENTS

 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

 INTRODUCTION

 FACTS OF THE CASE

 ISSUES RAISED

 ISSUE 1

 ISSUE 2

 ISSUE 3

 ISSUE 4

 ISSUE 5

 ISSUE ANALYZED

 CONCLUSION

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I deem it to be my utmost privilege to present this case analysis on this very pertinent case –
“State of Himachal Pradesh v Union of India”.

At the outset, I would like to express our deepest gratitude to the Respected Director, Mr Bimal
N. Patel, Gujarat National Law University, for granting this wonderful opportunity to me to carry
out this research, for which I shall remain ever indebted.

At this juncture, I would also like to express our deepest gratitude to Mr. Girish R., Assistant
Professor of Law, Gujarat National Law University, for his immense resourcefulness and
precious guidance in the course of preparing this case analysis.

It is indeed impossible to mention the names of everyone – teachers, peers and others – who have
helped us in providing information and formulating our ideas through stimulating discussions.

Therefore, all in all, I take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to one and all under
whose valuable support this crude brainwave has finally materialized into this cogent and
coherent document.

3
 Introduction
Water is the precious gift of nature to the mankind and it is one of the essential elements to
sustain life and an important input in socioeconomic development of a country. Agriculture,
power, industry, livelihood, social welfare and recreation all depend upon this input. Availability
of water and development of water resource facilitates the development of different regions.
Regions lacking such development remained underdeveloped and in-fact have degraded their
natural resources. With more fallow lands brought under irrigation, extracting ground water has
increased agricultural activity, industrial activity and continuous pollution resulted in reduced
water availability. At present a combination of factors such as failed rainfall and over-tapping of
ground water resulted in fall in water levels by 3.00 mts. to 25 mts. at many places
Thus in many places, regions, states and nations, water have become the bone of contention for
disputes. In India there are innumerable disputes between the states and within the states for river
water sharing. It is high time to address the problem of water scarcity before it threatens the
national integrity. There is every need to attend to this priority item. As it is there are a number
of cases pending in the Supreme Court awaiting decision. Therefore, there is a need to create a
proper forum and methodology of sharing river water.

So here is a provision-
Article 2621 - 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) coordination between States
In exercise of the power conferred by article 262 of the Constitution read with Union list, entry
56 (Regulation and development 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.), Parliament has enacted the Inter-State Water Disputes
Act, 1956

1
Indian Constitution, 1950.

4
As per the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (ISRWD Act, 1956) when the water
dispute arises among two or more State Governments, the Central Government receives a request
under Section 3 of the Act from any of the basis States with regard to existence of water dispute.
In accordance with the said Act, the Central Government is required to refer a dispute to a
Tribunal after it is satisfied that the dispute cannot be settled through negotiations.

Article 262 of the Indian constitution gives exclusive power to the parliament to enact a law
providing for the adjudication of disputes or complaints relating to the water of Inter-state River
or river valleys. The disputes or complaints for which the adjudication may be provided relate to
the “use, distribution or control” of the waters of, or in any interstate river or river valley2.

Thus it is to be noted that the above stated provisions bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
only if the matter is related to water dispute. When the act was passed it was general thinking of
the litigants that if the subject matter of the case contains interstate rivers then the Supreme Court
is barred to adjudicate that matter. In many of the cases the contentions had been raised with
respect to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The present case also revolves around the
dispute related to power sharing of the states from the i.e. the power generated from two power
projects on two interstate rivers. This case will clarify the point with this regard. There are
several other issues related to the interpretation of the provisions of different statutes. This case
has determined the respective rights and liabilities of different states based on different
provisions of different legislations, agreements, treaty, government decisions.

2
Prof. S.R. Bhansali, The constitution of India, Volume 2, 1st Ed., 2007, pg. 1081.

5
 Facts of the Case

This dispute between the State of Himachal Pradesh (Plaintiff), on the one hand, and the Union
of India (defendant No. 1), State of Punjab (defendant No. 2), State of Haryana (defendant No.
3), State of Rajasthan (defendant No. 4) and Union Territory of Chandigarh (defendant No. 5),
on the other hand, under Article 131 of the Constitution of India relates to the power generated in
the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects.

The Bhakra dam across the river Satluj was proposed in the year 1944 in the Bilaspur State. The
construction of Bhakra dam was to result in submergence of a large territory of the Bilaspur State
but would benefit the Province of Punjab. Hence, the Raja of Bilaspur agreed to the proposal for
construction of the Bhakra dam only on certain terms and conditions detailed in a draft
agreement which was to be executed on behalf of the Raja of Bilaspur and the Province of
Punjab. These terms and conditions included payment of royalties for generation of power from
the water of the reservoir of the Bhakra dam. The formal agreement between the Raja of Bilaspur
and the province of Punjab, however, could not be executed as the Bilaspur State ceded to the
Dominion of India in 1948. When the Constitution of India was adopted in the year 1950,
Bilaspur and Himachal Pradesh were specified as Part-C States in the First Schedule to the
Constitution. In 1954, Bilaspur and Himachal Pradesh were united to form a new State of
Himachal Pradesh under the Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New States) Act, 1954. The new
State of Himachal Pradesh, however, continued to be a Part-C State until it became a Union
Territory by the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956. In 1966, Parliament enacted the
Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 which bifurcated the erstwhile State of Punjab to two States,
Punjab and Haryana, and transferred some of the territories of the erstwhile State of Punjab to
the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. With effect from 25.01.1971, this Union Territory of
Himachal Pradesh became a full-fledged State by the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970. The
new State of Himachal Pradesh thus constitutes (i) the erstwhile Part-C State of Bilaspur; (ii) the
erstwhile Part-C State of Himachal Pradesh and (iii) the transferred territories of State of Punjab.

The construction of Bhakra dam has brought about lot of benefits to the country and in particular
the Defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

6
The river Beas originates in District Kullu of Himachal Pradesh and the Beas Project is a multi-
purpose scheme. Although Beas Project is located in the State of Himachal Pradesh, benefits of
the project has been accrued to Defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Under the scheme for apportionment of assets and liabilities between the successor States in the
Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 the assets and liabilities are to be transferred to the successor
States in proportion to the population ratio distributed between the successor States/Union
Territories. As 7.19% of the total population of the composite State of Punjab was transferred
along with the territories transferred to the Plaintiff under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966,
the Plaintiff was entitled to 7.19% of the total power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas
Projects. Moreover, the Union of India has agreed in principle that the "mother State" which
houses a hydro-electric power project by bearing the reservoir of water required for generation of
hydro-electric power shall be entitled to at least 12% of total power generated from such project
free of cost. Since Plaintiff is the mother State in which the reservoirs of the two hydro-electric
power projects, Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects were located, plaintiff was entitled to supply
of 12% of the total power generated in the two projects free of cost.

The legal right of the Plaintiff to its share of power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas
Projects has been acknowledged by Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 titled
"Rights and Liabilities in regard to Bhakra- Nangal and Beas Projects". Accordingly, the
Plaintiff filed its claims with respect to the Bhakra- Nangal and Beas Projects by letter dated
22.10.1969 before the Central Government and made several subsequent representations
thereafter to the Central Government from time to time but the Central Government for one
reason or the other did not take steps to determine finally the rights of the Plaintiff in respect of
the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects. In the absence of the any such final determination by the
Central Government, the power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects has been
being shared by an ad hoc arrangement.

The cause of action for filing the suit arose when the Central Government ultimately failed to
determine the lawful claim of the Plaintiff. For failure on the part of the Central Government to
determine the share of the plaintiff in the power generated in the two projects, the plaintiff has
claimed compensation from the Central Government also.

7
Issues

01. Whether the suit is not maintainable being barred by limitation, delay and laches?
02. Whether after the merger of the State of Bilaspur with the Dominion of India,
plaintiff could still have any cause of action to file the present suit?
03. Whether the suit barred by reasons of Article 363 of the Constitution?
04. Whether the suit is not maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution?
05. Whether the suit does not disclose any cause of action against the Defendant Nos. 3
and 4 and therefore liable to be rejected under Order XXIII Rule 6(a) of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966?
06. Whether the suit is not maintainable by virtue of the scheme of the Punjab
Reorganization Act, 1966 in general and provisions of Sections 78 to 80 of the said
Act in particular?
07. Whether in the discussions held on 17th April, 1967, any agreement was reached
between the party States as regards their share in power generated (rights to receive
and to utilize the power generated) in the Bhakra Project?
08. Whether the Plaintiff-State is entitled to 12% of the net power generated in Bhakra-
Nangal & Beas Projects free of cost from the date of commissioning of the projects?
09. Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh is entitled to an allocation of 7.19% in
addition to 12% free power as claimed above?
10. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 2199.77 crores against
the Defendants jointly and severally, as compensation/reimbursement for their
failure to supply to the Plaintiff 12% and 7.19% shares (on account of distress
caused/surrender of rights to generate power and on account of transfer of
population to the Plaintiff State respectively in the power generated in these
projects upto the date of the filing of the present suit and such further sums as may
be determined, as entitlement of the Plaintiff for the period subsequent to the filing
of the suit? (Plaintiff)
11. Whether the Plaintiff-State is entitled to the award of any interest on the amounts
determined as its entitlement? (Plaintiff)

8
Though there are many issues in this case but here we will go through only first 5 issues which
are related to some of the constitutional provisions and the interpretation of those provisions are
important with regard to the present case. The other issues are based upon adjudication of rights
and liabilities of plaintiff and defendants by thorough examination of facts of the case, clauses of
some statutes, terms of an agreement and an order of union government. Moreover, out of the
five issues that we will discuss, 4th issue needs to be analyzed properly.

Issue No. 1

Defendant Nos. 1 and 5 submitted that the Bhakra-Nangal Project was completed in 1963 and the
Beas Project was completed in 1977, whereas the suit has been filed in the year 1996 and,
therefore, the suit is belated and barred by limitation. Defendant No. 4 cited the decision in U.P.
Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Anr3 in which this Court has held that a party would
not be entitled to relief if he has not been vigilant in invoking the protection of his rights and has
acquiesced with the changed situation.

Court held- Article 131 of the Constitution does not prescribe any period of limitation within
which a State or the Union of India has to file a dispute in this Court. No other provision of law
has been brought to our notice prescribing the period within which a dispute under Article 131 of
the Constitution can be instituted by a State against any other State or the Union of India.

Issue No. 2

By Bilaspur Merger Agreement Raja of Bilaspur ceded to the Dominion Government full and
exclusive authority, jurisdiction and powers for and in relation to the governance of the State and
agreed to transfer the administration of the State to the Dominion Government. Thereafter, the
Government of India, Ministry of Law, issued a notification in exercise of its powers under
Section 290 -A of the Government of India Act, 1935 making the States Merger (Chief
Commissioners Provinces) Order, 1949. Under this States Merger (Chief Commissioners
Provinces) Order, 1949, Bilaspur was to be administered in all respects as if it was a Chief
Commissioner's Province. Under the Constitution of India also initially Bilaspur continued to be
administered as the Chief Commissioner's Province and was included in the First Schedule of the
3
(2006) 11 SCC 464

9
Constitution as a Part-C State. Under Article 294(b) all rights, liabilities and obligations of the
Government of the Dominion of India, whether arising out of any contract or otherwise, became
the rights, liabilities and obligations of the Government of India. These provisions of the
Bilaspur Merger Agreement, the States Merger (Chief Commissioners Provinces) Order, 1949,
the First Schedule of the Constitution and Article 294(b) of the Constitution make it clear that
Bilaspur became the part of the Dominion of India and thereafter was administered as a Chief
Commissioner's Province by the Government of India and all rights of the Raja of Bilaspur
vested in the Government of India.

Court held- The Plaintiff will not have any cause of action to make any claim on the basis of any
right of Raja of Bilaspur prior to the merger of Bilaspur State with the Dominion of India. The
pleadings in the plaint and the reliefs claimed therein, however, show that the Plaintiff's case is
not founded only on the rights of Raja of Bilaspur prior to its merger with the Dominion of India.
The Plaintiff's claim to the share of power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects is
also based on Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 and the rights of the State of
Himachal Pradesh under the Constitution. The claim of the Plaintiff-State to share of power from
the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects in the suit insofar as it is based on provisions of the Punjab
Reorganization Act, 1966 and the provisions of the Constitution are not affected by the merger of
the State of Bilaspur with the Dominion of India.

Issue No.3

Defendant No. 4 submitted that the suit was barred under the proviso to Article 131 of the
Constitution and Article 363 of the Constitution. In support of this contention, he relied on State
of Seraikella and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr4 . Defendant No. 3 also raised this contention
and relied on State of Orissa v. State of A.P5. Proviso to Art 131 states SC’s jurisdiction shall not
extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other
similar instrument which, having been entered into or executed before the commencement of this
Constitution, continues in operation after such commencement, or which provides that the said

4
AIR 1951 SC 253.
5
(2006) 9 SCC 591.

10
jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute. Art. 363 talks about bar to interference by courts
in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc.

Court held- The only agreement proved to have been executed by the Raja of Bilaspur and the
Government of the Dominion of India before the commencement of the Constitution is the
Bilaspur Merger Agreement and on a close examination of the provisions of the Bilaspur Merger
Agreement, we find that there are no provisions therein which have any relevance to the claim of
the Plaintiff to the share of the Plaintiff to the power generated in the Bhakra- Nangal and Beas
Projects. However, we have already held that the claim of the Plaintiff-State is based also on the
Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 and the provisions of the Constitution and such claim is not
barred under Article 363 of the Constitution.

Issue No. 4

This issue has been raised by the Defendant No. 4 (State of Rajasthan) and its case is that the suit
is actually a dispute with regard to use of water in interstate rivers, namely, Satluj and Beas, and
is barred under Article 262(2) of the Constitution. Defendant No. 4, submitted that the case of
the Plaintiff is that on account of the use of water of the two interstate rivers for generation of
hydro-electric power in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects, the Plaintiff has lost its
entitlement to beneficial use of the water. He cited decisions of the Supreme Court in Re:
Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal6. State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. and Ors7, State of
Haryana v. State of Punjab and Anr 8and State of Orissa v. Government of India and Anr9 in
support of his submissions that a suit which is really a dispute relating to the use of water of an
inter-state river is barred under Clause (2) of Article 262 of the Constitution read with Section 11
of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.

Court held- . In, State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. and Ors.10 It was held that when a contention
is raised that a suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution is barred under Article 262(2) of
the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, what is

6
1993 Supp (1) SCC 96 (II).
7
(2000) 9 SCC 572.
8
(2002) 2 SCC 507.
9
(2009) 5 SCC 492.
10
Supra Note 7.

11
necessary to be found out is whether the assertions made in the plaint and the relief sought for,
by any stretch of imagination, can be held to be a water dispute so as to oust the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution. In State of Haryana v State of Punjab11 it was
held that the question of maintainability of the suit has to be decided upon the assertions made by
the Plaintiffs and the relief sought for, and taking the totality of the same and not by spinning up
one paragraph of the plaint and then deciding the matter. Applying this test to the present case,
we find on a reading of the assertions made in the entire plaint as well as the reliefs claimed
therein by the Plaintiff that the dispute does not relate to a dispute in relation to interstate river
water or the use thereof, and actually relates to sharing of power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal
and the Beas Projects and such a dispute was not barred under clause (2) of Article 262 of the
Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter- State Water Disputes Act, 1956.

Issue No. 5

Defendant No. 3 and Defendant No. 4 argued that unless the Plaintiff-State establishes its legal
right to the share of power from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects, the suit of the Plaintiff is
not maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution. They submitted that Order XXIII Rule
6(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 states that a plaint shall be rejected where it does not
disclose any cause of action and in this case since the plaint does not disclose a legal right in
favor of the Plaintiff-State to its share of power from the Bhakra- Nangal and Beas Projects, the
plaint is liable to be rejected. In support of this contention, they relied on the decision of this
Court in State of Haryana v. State of Punjab and Anr.12

Court Held- It has been earlier held while answering Issue No. 2 that after Bilaspur became part
of the Dominion of India; the Plaintiff cannot make any claim to power on the basis of the rights
of the Raja of Bilaspur prior to the merger of the Bilaspur State with the Dominion of India. So
far as the rights of a State or Union Territory over its water and land are concerned, none of the
constituent units of the Indian Union were sovereign and independent entities before the
Constitution and after the commencement of the Constitution the constituent units have only

11
Supra Note 8.
12
(2004) 12 SCC 673.

12
such rights as are conferred on them by the provisions of the Constitution as has been held by
this Court in Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay and Anr.13

Himachal Pradesh which included the erstwhile State of Bilaspur was a Union Territory and not
a State. The executive and the legislative power over water and land in Entries 17 and 18 of List-
II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution vested in 1959 in the Union of India. So in 1959
when the agreement was made between the States of Punjab and Rajasthan to construct the
Bhakra Dam across the river Satluj which would have the effect of submerging large areas
within Himachal Pradesh, it is the Union of India which had the right over the water and land in
Himachal Pradesh and if the Union of India has, in exercise of its constitutional powers
acquiesced in the construction of the Dam at Bhakra over river Satluj, the Plaintiff-State can
have no cause of action to make a claim to power from the Bhakra-Nangal Project on the basis of
submergence of large areas of Himachal Pradesh on account of the construction of the Bhakra
Dam.

The submergence of the large areas of Himachal Pradesh because of the construction of the Beas
Project took place due to decisions to which the Government of India was a party and when
Himachal Pradesh was a Union Territory and the Union of India had executive and legislative
power over water and land in Himachal Pradesh by virtue of the constitutional provisions in
Article 73(1)14 and Article 246(4)15 of the Constitution. The Plaintiff-State therefore cannot have
any cause of action to make a claim to power from the Beas Project on the basis of submergence
of large areas of Himachal Pradesh.

However, the Plaintiff had the statutory right under Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganization Act,
1966 to the utilization of power and also the constitutional right to equal treatment vis-a-vis the
other successor States of the composite State of Punjab and the Plaintiff has cause of action in

13
AIR 1960 SC 51.
14
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of the Union shall extend (a) to the matters
with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws; and (b) to the exercise of such rights, authority and
jurisdiction as are exercisable by the government of India by virtue of any treaty on agreement: Provided that the
executive power referred to in sub clause (a) shall not, save as expressly provided in this constitution or in any law
made by Parliament, extend in any State to matters with respect in which the Legislature of the State has also power
to make laws
15
Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included (in
a State) notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List

13
the suit to make a claim to the utilization of power from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects on
the basis of such statutory right and constitutional right. But the Defendant No. 4 (State of
Rajasthan) was never a part of composite State of Punjab and its rights and liabilities including
its rights to utilization of power in the Bhakra- Nangal and Beas Projects are not affected by the
Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966. the Plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit against the
State of Rajasthan (Defendant No. 4), but since the Plaintiff-State has a legal right to utilization
of power out of the total share of power of the composite State of Punjab from the Bhakra-
Nangal and Beas Projects as a successor State, the Plaintiff has cause of action to file the suit and
to maintain the suit as against Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 5. Moreover, as under Section 78(1) of
the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 the Central Government was required to determine by an
order the rights of the Plaintiff to utilization of power from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects
and the Central Government has not done so, the Plaintiff-State has cause of action to file the suit
against the Defendant No. 1.

14
Issue Analyzed

The contention of the defendant in issue no. 4 was that the Supreme Court does not have
jurisdiction with regard to the case concerning “water dispute”

Article 262 of the Constitution reads as under:

“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, 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)”

Sec 11 of the Interstate water disputes act, 195616 talks about bar of jurisdiction of Supreme
Court and other courts.
It says that SC court cannot entertain the case it relates to water disputes. Now to understand
what actually water dispute is we have to look Sec 2(c) of the same act.

“Water dispute" means any dispute or difference between two or more State Governments with
respect to-
01. The use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter- State river or river
valley; or
02. The interpretation of the terms of any agreement relating to the use, distribution or
control of such waters or the implementation of such agreement; or
03. The levy of any water rate in contravention of the prohibition contained in section 7.

16
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, 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.

15
The word “use”, “distribution” and “control” are of wide import and may include regulation and
development of the said waters. The provisions clearly indicate the amplitude of the scope
adjudication an as much as it takes within its sweep the determination of the extent, and the
manner, of the use of the said waters, and the power to give directions in respect of the same.17

The provisions of interstate water disputes act clearly show that apart from its title, the act is
made by the parliament pursuant to the provisions of art. 262 of the constitution specifically for
the adjudication of the disputes between the riparian states with regard to the use, distribution or
control of the waters of the Inter-state river or river valleys18

In Mullaperiyar environmental Protection Forum v Union of India19, the dispute between Tamil
Nadu and Kerala was not a “water dispute”. The right of Tamil Nadu to divert water from
Periyar reservoir to Tamil Nadu for integrated purpose of irrigation or to use the water to
generate power or for other uses was not in dispute. It was not in dispute that the dam always had
and still stands at the height of 155 ft and its design of full water is 152 ft. In 1979 the water
level was brought down to 136 ft. to facilitate the state of Tamil Nadu to carry out certain
strengthening measures suggested by the central water commission. The main issue, therefore,
was about the safety of dam on increase of water level to 142 ft. For determining this issue,
neither Art.262 of the constitution nor the provisions of the interstate water disputes act, 1956
have any applicability. The court, therefore said that there was no substance in the contention
that Art.262 read with sec 11 of the Inter- State Water Disputes act, 1956 bars the jurisdiction of
the court in regard to the nature of the disputes between the two states.

In Cauvery Sangam v UOI20 Tamil Nadu with regard to an agreement approached Supreme Court
that they don’t want to renew the agreement and in place want fresh agreement in which it will
have larger share. Central government kept the matter pending without any further action. Tamil
Nadu approached Supreme Court and then central government said that SC should not interfere
in this matter as they don’t have jurisdiction. Central government formed a secretary level

17
Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, AIR 1992 SC 522
18
Supra Note 2.
19
(2006) 3 SCC 643.
20
1990 SCC (3) 440

16
committee but that committee also didn’t solve the issue and thus many of the cases were filed
and these cases were closed on the submission of the central government that these cases will be
settled outside the court but nothing happened so an NGO, T.N Cauvery Sangam approached
Supreme court under art 32 where they sought that the Supreme Court should direct the central
government to constitute a water dispute tribunal in this regard. Again the same contention was
there on the part of central government that the matter will be settled outside the court, took
many adjournments but finally Supreme Court went ahead to decide the case on merit. UOI
challenged it as they contested that Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction as the case is related
to water dispute but SC stated that in this case the NGO sought for the direction to UOI and thus
the main issue in the case is not water dispute and thus SC has the jurisdiction.

Similar issue was there in State of Tamil Nadu v State of Karnataka21. Before the tribunal formed
Tamil Nadu filed an interlocutory application, state of Karnataka contested that the tribunal can’t
entertain interlocutory application as it is constituted to decide the dispute and to pass a final
order and thus it can’t pass any interim relief. T.N goes directly to S.C under Art 136. Karnataka
contested that this being a water dispute S.C doesn’t have jurisdiction. S.C stated that they are
not deciding on water dispute. They are deciding a question whether the tribunal has the power
to entertain any interlocutory application and whereby pass any interim relief. So they have
jurisdiction.

We can see that in many of the cases there had been contention that the S.C doesn’t have
jurisdiction to entertain the matter even if the issue to be decided is not related to the water
dispute. Their contention was mainly based upon the fact that the issue in the question is related
to the case where there is water dispute. S.C in different is clarifying this point that the issue
before the court should only be taken into consideration.

21
1991 SCR (2) 501

17
 Conclusion

This case was based upon many of the provisions of constitution, different statutes, clauses on
agreements, government orders and thus there had been many issues as there had been doubt
with respect to several provisions, clauses. This case clarified many doubts and the wrong
assumptions taken by the parties with regard to the certain constitutional provisions. Like the
court clearly stated with regard to the limitation period issue that the Art 131 nowhere talks about
the limitation period and hence even if the dispute is filed after a long duration it will not be
barred on the ground of limitation. It has been noted that the litigants are challenging the
jurisdiction of the court based on Art 262 of the constitution read with sec 11 of the Inter-State
water Disputes Act, 1956. They are challenging the jurisdiction whenever the case is somehow
related to water dispute. They don’t consider the issue before the court. Though the case may be
related to water dispute but at many instance the issue before the court is related to something
else. Supreme Court in this case clarified this point in an efficient manner and gave the solution
to solve such challenges.

In State of Karnataka case a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that when a
contention is raised that a suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution is barred under Article
262(2) of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956,
what is necessary to be found out is whether the assertions made in the plaint and the relief
sought for, by any stretch of imagination, can be held to be a water dispute so as to oust the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution. Court in this case clearly stated
that the question of maintainability of the suit has to be decided upon the assertions made by the
Plaintiffs and the relief sought for, and taking the totality of the same and not by spinning up one
paragraph of the plaint and then deciding the matter.

It is to be noted that Art 262 only bars the jurisdiction of the court when there is need to
adjudicate upon a water dispute. The article gives the power to central government to constitute a
tribunal in this regard but Supreme Court being the apex court has the eminent jurist of the
country and there have been instances where the tribunal so constituted was unable to answer

18
some issues properly and thus the parties had to approach Supreme Court to get a proper solution
with regard to any issue. For e.g. in State of Tamil Nadu v State of Karnataka case the tribunal
was unable to answer the issue that whether it is empowered to entertain any interlocutory
application wherein any interim relief is being asked. So the party had to approach Supreme
Court and then it was contested by the opposite party that the Supreme Court doesn’t have
jurisdiction but the court rejected this contention and laid down with a proper reasoning that the
tribunal is empowered to entertain any interlocutory application. So if the Supreme Court is
totally barred to entertain any issue which has an incidental relation to the water dispute then
many of the important issues will be adjudicated wrongly and that’s why the framers of the
constitution and the framers of the legislation i.e. Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 has used
such a language in provision that it don’t completely bar the jurisdiction of the court.

In regard to issues relating to the rights claimed by the plaintiff we come to know that no party
claim any right with respect to any agreement if it himself was not a party to the agreement. The
party can claim the rights, if any, if it is being provided under any provision of any statute.

The judgment writing style in this case is appreciated. The court has not decided the case in
totality. It took each and every issue separately and gave brief but wonderful reasoning.

19
 Bibliography

Books Referred:

 D.D Basu, The Constitution of India, Volume 8.

 M.P Jain, Constitution of India.

 Prof. S.R. Bhansali, The constitution of India, Volume 2.

Cases Referred:

 U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Anr, (2006) 11 SCC 464.

 State of Seraikella and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr, AIR 1951 SC 253.

 State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. and Ors, (2006) 9 SCC 591.

 State of Haryana v. State of Punjab and Anr, (2000) 9 SCC 572.

 State of Orissa v. Government of India and Anr, (2002) 2 SCC 507.

 State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. and Ors, (2009) 5 SCC 492.

 State of Haryana v State of Punjab and Anr, (2004) 12 SCC 673.

 Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay and Anr, AIR 1960 SC 51.

20
 Mullaperiyar environmental Protection Forum v Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 643.

 Cauvery Sangam v UOI, 1990 SCC (3) 440

 State of Tamil Nadu v State of Karnataka, 1991 SCR (2) 501

 Re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 96 (II)

 Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, AIR 1992 SC 522

21