RESIDUARY POWERS

The residuary power lies with the union by virtue of art. 248 read with entry 97 of the Union
List. The union makes laws on state matters which are not mentioned in any list. This primarily
for those areas which the constitutional makers may not have thought of at the time of drafting
the constitution like Atomic Energy.

C- UOI V. HS DHILLON

Parliament passed Finance Act, 1969 which amended Wealth Tax Act, 1957 to bring the capital
value of agricultural land under within its its purview.

1. It was challenged before Punjab and Haryana HC; it was claimed that parliament does not
have legislative competence to enact a law that can impose wealth tax on agricultural land.
This includes capital value of agricultural land. Originally, wealth tax was not applicable
on agricultural land. HC agreed with this claim.
2. HC also held that no states also have LC under this matter under Entry 49 of the state list.
(So no one has the LC)

Challenged Before SC

Relevant Entries:

a. Entry 86 of List I- Parliament can make act on wealth tax but exclusive of agricultural land.

b. Entry 49 of List II- Tax on land and buildings (P and H HC already held that tax can’t be
imposed on agricultural land [Capital Value] under these entries.)

Arguments of UoI (Setalvad)

a. The impugned act is not based on the subject matter of any list- parliament has not made
any law with any entry of any list.
b. It falls within the legislative power of the parliament though residuary powers under Art.
248 read with Entry 97 of List I.
c. The words exclusive of ‘agricultural land’ found under Entry 86 of List II could not
cut down the scope of the parliament power under Entry 97 of List I and art. 248.
The express exclusion can’t effect residuary powers- Residuary power prevails over the
states power under list II.
Arguments of Respondents. (Palkhivala)

a. It was the scheme of the constitution to give states the power to legislate on agricultural
land. It includes capital value of agricultural land. Parliament doesn’t have legislative
competence.
b. Objective and effect of excluding agricultural land from Entry 86 of List I- makes
it clear that it is out of the ambit of Entry 97 of List I. Parliament can make act on
wealth tax but exclusive of agricultural land.
c. HC was wrong in holding that act is not under entry 49 of list 2. Tax on land is under staes,
and this includes any kind of tax, including agricultural land tax.
d. The subject and effect of specifically excluding agricultural land from the scope of entry
86 also takes it out of the ambit of residuary powers under Entry 97 of List I.- Express
exclusion means that it is excluded from areas of residuary power.

Arguments of UoI- Setalvad counter

a. Proper way of testing the validity of parliamentary statute under our constitution was 1st
to see whether parliamentary legislation was not a matter or matter of tax as mentioned in
List II- If it was not, no other question would arise.
Whether this law possible under state list under any general entry or tax entry.- If not found under state
list then no other question –parliamentary law will be valid. No need to establish
legislative competence of parliament.
b. This was in a way a test of legislative competence. This test not accepted today.

Counter argument- Palkhivala

a. This manner of enquiry had never been suggested in any of the decisions of the court in
last twenty years. So accordingly, it can’t be accepted, there is something wrong with the
test.

SC Held- They decided two questions

a. Is the impugned act a legislation in accordance with Entry 49 of List II?

b. If it is not beyond the legislative competence of the parliament?

Decision

Unanimous SC held that it is not possible to make a law under Entry 49 of the state list. Thus state
does not have legislative competence. A divided SC on 4:3 found that the state has legislative
power to make the law under residuary powers- express exclusion doesn’t stop the
parliament from making the law. “We are compelled to give full effect to Article 248
because we know of no principle of construction by which we can cut down the wide words
of a substantive article like article 248.”

Minority held that since there is express exclusion, parliament does not have legislative
competence.

C-INTERNATIONAL TOURIST CORPORATION V. STATE OF HARYANA (POSSIBLE 5 MARKER)

SC held that to determine the value of a parliamentary legislation, reliance on residuary

entry should be a last resort.

Haryana passed a legislation providing for tax on goods and passengers carried on National
Highways named the Haryana Passengers and Goods Act. It was held that the same should be
struck down as states don’t have legislative competence and the parliamentary power is exercised
through the residuary entry.

It was challenged because it was claimed that only parliament has LC w.r.t. national highways.

Appellant-

1. Contended that since the parliament has legislative competence over National Highways
in general, the central law is valid.
2. They further relied on Entry 23 of List I which provides the Centre power over National
Highways.
3. Further, the Centre also had power via residuary powers. Entry 56 doesn’t include
good and passengers on National Highways. All taxes on NHs are a under the
purview of Centre.

State of Haryana-

1. Contended that they made the law under Entry 56 of the State List which provides
power to tax goods and passengers carried by road or inland waterways- doesn’t
give power to the state to tax National Highways.
2. Entry 23 is a general entry and not related specifically to taxes. Entry 56 is a specific entry.
Specific takes precedence over general. Parliament is specifically excluded.

SC rejected both arguments and contended that reliance of residuary power can be made only
as a last resort, it shouldn’t be claimed at first instance. States can make such a law and
the tax can be justified based on Entry 56 of the SL. (NH are included under ‘roads’, there
is no specific classification.)

Present in Sri Hari’s Notes, not there in Raunak’s notes. Please check if it has been taught
to us.

C- ALL INDIA TAX PRACTIONERS (LOOK AT THIS CASE FROM PITH AND SUBSTANCE)

Parliaments power to make laws on state list subjects

There are 4 circumstances where the paeliament can make law on state list matters

a. Where there is national interest- art. 249

What constitutes a National Interest is determined by the Rajya Sabha by a resolution passed by
2/3rds of the members who are present and voting. Health is a matter in the state list, but
Parliament can make laws if the Rajya Sabha declares the same.

b. When there is an emergency- art. 250

Specifically National Emergency under Art. 352

c. A situation where consent of the states whereby 2 or more states are asking for
parliamentary law in state matters- art. 252

Resolutions are required to be passed in both the states legislative assemblies. Further if other
states desire to adopt the law, they can do so by passing their own resolutions

d. For giving effect to treaties and international agreements – art. 253

C- UOI V. BASAVAIAH CHAUDHURY

The SC in these cases clarified that parliamentary law made on state matters will not be applicable
to those states which have not passed the resolution, and that other states can adopt it if they
desire to do so. Resolution in this provision means that if there are two houses in the state, it has
to be passed in both houses.

Governors assent is not required for this resolution to be passed, and the law can even have the
features of those states which are not part of the original resolution.
A law will be applicable to that state from the date of passing of the resolution. Court also held
that this law cant be amended or repealed by the state legislatures, and this can be done by the
parliament only.

ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS

Article 256-263 aim to achieve cooperative federalism.

Executive relations between the union and the state- There are 4 groups

a. Obligation of states to allow union laws and executive action on uninterrupted

operation- vision of constitution makers- art. 256 and 257. If not for this India cannot
function as laws like IPC and CrPC will not operate in states.
 It is the duty of state executive to ensure smooth functioning of Union law without
any hindrance.
 Article 256: Executive of every state must insure xompliance with laws made by
parliament.
 Article 257: The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to
impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union, and the
executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a
State.
256- duty of states to implement parliamentary law
257- union executive actions are to be implemented in every state without any
hindrance.
(Read art. 256 and 257: They empower the Centre to issue directions to states for
functioning of Union Laws)
 C- JAY ENGINEERING WORKS V. STATE OF W.B
Govt. of WB issued an order directing W.B. Police not to enter in any industrial
establishment and sto any of the workers ‘gherao’ or strike. This being an offence
under the CrPC, the state circular effectively provided for the non enforcement of
the CrPC. Hindrance was created by State in implementation of Union Law.
Non implementation of the CrPC was challenged before the Calcutta HC- it was
held that this is violative of art. 256 and therefore struck down the order. State
can’t create obstruction in implementation of Union Law.
b. Inter governmental delegation of administrative functions- Union executive
functions can be delegated to states and in vice versa. (Article 258)
  Delegation of administrative powers of the centre to the states by virtue of art.
258- can be done through agreement under art. 258(1) or by legislation under art.
258(2).
 258(1): Railway Function (Union Function) has been delegated to states via an
agreement to take necessary actions for safety of passengers.
 258(2): Central Sales Tax Act, made under entry 92 of the Union List proves that
levying and collecting of sales tax has to be done by states.
 Delegation of administrative powers of the state to the Centre by virtue of art.
258A- only under agreement.

c. Inter state disputes and role of union government.

 Expenditure under 258(1) and (2) to be incurred by the union. In case of any
dispute between the Centre and the states regarding such payment- the dispute will
be solved through an arbitrator appointed by the CJI- art. 258(3) and such
expenditure must be paid by the state or the union as the case maybe. Union will
give state the amount for expenditure when the union delegates functions to the
states.

d. Institutional arrangements to solve administrative problems. (Eg. Inter-State Council

–Western Council Includes Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Goa.)
 Art. 263 provides for the establishment of the inter state council- visualizes the
institution of inter state and zonal councils- these are formed to achieve inter
governmental and cooperation in socio economic fields. These are ad hoc bodies
and not permanent bodies. They can be permanent, but till date they have always
been ad hoc.
 Duties of the Inter State Council
a. Inquiry and advise upon disputes that have arisen between states.
b. Investigation and discussion on subjects in which Union, one or more
states have common interest. [Article 263(b)]. Eg. Deadlock w.r.t. to VAT
was resolved under Art. 263(b).
c. Making recommendations on a subject matters for the better
coordination of policy and action w.r.t. subjects of 263(c).
d. Establishing, organization, prescribing procedure for councils in
authority of president. ISC can be established by a presidential order.
  Art. 263 provided for 5 zonal councils (Other type of council) and
each council consists of
a. Union home minister- ex officio chairman
b. Chief ministers of member states
c. 2 ministers nominated by government of each state
These are permanent in nature and have been established by statute under
State Reorganization Act, 1956.

WATER DISPUTES (REFER TO HANDOUTS)

Note: Article 262(1), (2) and S. 11 f ISWDA must be mentioned in question related to water
distribution.

Art. 262- provides for adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter state rivers and valleys-
parliament is empowered to make laws providing for adjudication of disputes for the same.

(2)- This provision does not by itself exclude the jurisdiction of the SC or any other court- only
provides that parliament may make laws that excludes the SCs jurisdiction.

The parliament may make laws with regard to inter-state water disputes. Effect of 262(2) r/w
section 11 of the ISWDA is that the government took away the jurisdiction of all courts. So no
court has the jurisdiction.

The parliament passed the Inter State Water Disputes Act- provided for the adjudication of
water disputes.

S.3 provided that any aggrieved party can apply to the Government of India through an
application. Once the application reaches the union and they feel the dispute in valid in their eyes,
they constitute a tribunal which will alone have the jurisdiction to settle the dispute. The
central government the need for a central tribunal and there is no permanent water dispute
tribunal. The subject matter is determined by the CG.

S.4- SM of adjudication has to be notified with the constitution of the tribunal.

S.5 r/w S.4: The tribunal has to submit a report before the Government of India. This report
becomes enforceable when notified under S.6.
S.5- Decision will be considered as a decision unless the same has been notified.

S.6- Merely coming up with the award doesn’t complete the task. The CG has full discretion in
the matter. In the official gazette- only on notification of the tribunals report- it will become
enforceable/implementable.

S.11- most important- this bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts.

Inter State water disputes- It has been defined under S.2(c) of the act- a water dispute is a dispute
or a difference between two or more state governments with regard to

a. Use, distribution, control of aters of any inter state river or valley. [Same as 262(1)]
b. 2(c)(ii): Interpretation of terms of any agreement relevant to use, distribution and control
of such waters or implementation of such agreement constitutes water dispute.
c. 2(c)(iii): Levy of water rate in contravention of prohibitions contained in the S.7 (A state
cannot levy charges on other state for use or distribution of water.

The major role of the centre government is to decide whether a tribunal needs to be constituted-
however in reality the government has been playing a more adversarial role- it’s the SC that has
been involved in deciding matters like these.

The Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction in Water Dispute matters by using its powers
under Judicial Review.

CASE TABLE

Article TN Kaveri Sangam v. UOI (1990)

32
State of Orissa v. UOI (2009)

Atmalinga Reddy v. UOI (2008)

Article State of Karnataka v. State of AP /

131
State of AP v. State of Karnataka (2001)

State of Punjab v. Haryana/

State of Haryana v Punjab (2002)

State of TN v. Kerala

State of HP v. UOI

Article State of TN v. Karnataka

136
 Article Ref. on Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (1992)
143
Ref. on Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 (2017)

CAUVERY RIVER DISPUTE

The river originates in the Brahmagiri hills of the coorg district, goes to Mysore, and enters Tamil
Nadu at a waterfall Hoganikan through Krishnagiri and also enters into the union territory of
Pondicherry and Kerala. Karnataka has made many canals and water projects which has
reduced the natural flow of the water- reduced inflow of water into Tamil Nadu- TN and
Karnataka have been in constant fight since then.

Higher Riparian State: Karnataka

Lower Riparian States: TN, Kerala, Pondicherry

TN CAUVERY SANGHAM V. UOI

TNCN is an agricultural forum which filed a WP claiming their right to life. SC invoked jurisdiction
under art. 32 for a water dispute between TN and Karnataka

In 1924, an agreement was signed between madras and mysore with other states for a period of
50 years whereby they agreed to share cauvery river water. In 1970, TN approached UoI and
informed that this agreement between states can’t be continued. 1974 agreement couldn’t be
signed.

They wanted a new agreement as they claimed that they were not getting the allotted water and
not even surplus water. The government didn’t take any action, and therefore TN filed an OS
before the SC. Meanwhile during the pendency of this suit, a secretary level committee was formed
providing for interim water sharing till a new agreement could be made. After this, TN withdrew
the suit as CG assured that the dispute will be resolved outside the court. However, no action was
taken.

The question was with respect to constituting a tribunal.

Being HRS, Karnataka did not release adequate water.

Whenever such matter reaches the SC, it is argued that it doesn’t have jurisdiction.
Karnataka and UOI always argued that Article 262(2) r/w S. 11 of ISWD, SC had no
jurisdiction.
In 1983, the NCO Farmers Association approached the SC under art. 32 and made 2
primary claims

a. Direction directing UoI to constitute a WDT to resolve the kaveri dispute

b. Sought direction against state of Karnataka not to proceed with projects reservoirs,
construction of dams etc. across the river.

Consideration of writ was always postponed. UOI repeatedly responded by saying that the dispute
will be settled outside the court. The UOI and respondents took objection to the fact that the SC
took jurisdiction. In in 1989, it was found that 124 adjournments had been taked in these matters.

SC rejected this contention that they did not have jurisdiction and held that the claims made by
the applicants does not involve a water dispute, it involved the powers to constitute water
dispute tribunal.

SC in this matter held that they don’t have jurisdiction as it can’t constitute a water dispute.
However this was done only by looking at the first claim.

SC here ordered for a water dispute tribunal to be constituted within one month (Check
please). This was on the ground that FRs had been violated due to delay. Here it must be
seen that even though SC did not have jurisdiction in the dispute, they could order for a
WDT to be constituted.

A tribunal was constituted within one month.

HEARINGS OF TRIBUNAL

On the question of whether the tribunal can hear Interlocutory Applications

The tribunal was constituted and in its first hearing, TN made two interlocutory applications

a. Karnataka should not utilize kaveri river water beyond the agreed level as decided at
present.
b. Karnataka should be restrained from constructing dams, projects reservoirs canals etc.

Karnataka- argued that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction over these applications. These
contentions were rejected by the tribunal on the ground that the tribunal does not have
the powers to adjudicate matters agreed by the GOI.

The question therefore before the SC was whether the tribunal had the power to issue interlocutory
orders. Here it was held that the tribunal being a statutory body, the power and scope of the same
can be decided upon by the Supreme court. It accepted Karnataka’s argument that the tribunal
only had jurisdiction to make final decisions and not rule on temporary matters. This was
challenged in SC under Article 136.

STATE OF TN V, STATE OF KARNATAKA, 1991 (REFER TO THE HANDOUT, SLIGHTLY

CONFUSING DUE TO MIXTURE OF MANIHAR’S, SRIHARI’S, RAUNAK’S AND JALAJ’S NOTES.
PLEASE CHECK FROM MOHITS NOTES FOR FINALITY)

On the question of whether tribunal can issue interim orders

State of TNs arguments- the state of TN contended that due to art. 262 read with S.11 of the
ISWD act, no courts have jurisdiction to issue interim orders. Now if the tribunals too don’t
have jurisdiction then the parties will be left with no remedy. They wanted the tribunal to
have same powers of the court as given under S.151 of the CPC.

Respondent- The respondents stated that the tribunal doesn’t have power to issue interim
applications as the power has not been given under the ISWD act, and the tribunal cannot possess
the same powers as a civil court. ISWD Act, only gives final jurisdiction to the tribunal and not
interim jurisdiction due to S. 3 and 4. The tribunal had to consider arguments, evidence and look
at the matter as a whole. ISWD doesn’t proved for partial consideration. If TN wants interim relief
it has to first refer to the government and then the govt. will refer it to the tribunal.

SC- held that the tribunal has power to issue interim orders and that when a tribunal is constituted
and a matter is referred, all the matters ancillary and incidental to the main matter can be heard by
the tribunal. The tribunal has the same powers as a civil court when it comes to these
matters.

Therefore, on the two interlocutory applications, the following decisions were taken

a. Karnataka should not take water beyond the agreed limit

b. Karnataka should not make constructions at the Kaveri river.

To overcome the effects of this decision- Karnataka came up with an ordinance known as the
Karnataka Kavery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance 1991. This had an overriding effect
on all of the decisions and interim orders of the tribunals. It gave state officers to abstract water
from cauvery river.

This led to fights and violence in Karnataka and TN borders- and these had to be shut down. In
order to settle the tension, the president referred the questions to the SC in the case of Re Kaveri
water disputes tribunal in 1992. The ordinance had 6 Sections. Schedule had the names of the
project, which were to be completed in the state of Karnataka as its duty prescribed in Section 3.
It gave power to officers to take water whenever they wanted. S. 4 gave an overriding effect to any
order or judgment/report.

RE KAVERI WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL IN 1992

Questions referred

1. Whether the ordinance and its provisions thereof are in line with the constitution
2. Two sub questions
- Whether the order of the tribunal constitutes a report and decision within the meaning
of S.5(2) [S. 5(2) says that that any order of the tribunal needs to be published in the
gazette to give effect to its finality] of the ISWD act.
- Whether the order of the tribunal is required to be published in order to make it
effective?
3. Whether the WDT constituted is competent to grant any interim relied to the parties to
the dispute? (Already Decided by State of TN v. Karnataka)

Arguments of state of Karnataka

1. Presumption of constitutional validity which is ordinarily attached to a legislation- it is

upon the other party to prove that the law is valid. (Govt. doesn’t need to prove LC, it is
upon TN to prove validity of the law.)
2. State law is based on Entry 17 of List II, and the legislation is to protect preserve and
maintain irrigation from Kaveri water. (However this power was subject to entry 56 of
list 1 which already comes within the power of the union)
Under the River Board Act, there has to be a river Board for each river controlled by the
Union. There must be a RB for it be covered by the RBA. Only in this situation the state
cannot make a law (Lack of LC). No river board was constituted for Cauvery, hence it
wasn’t controlled by the union. Since in this case, the centre had not constituted a board.
Therefore, Entry 17 of List 1 is not a limitation to entry 56 of list two, and therefore
Karnataka can legislate on this matter.

3. The scheme of the act contemplates only 1 final report. The report as prescribed under
S.5 of the act requires information after conducting full investigation. Interim order
based on half information can’t be equated with a report under S.5 of the act. Only a final
 report can be published under S.5(2) and since the report is not final for interim relief,
then it goes against the spirit of the ISWD act.
4. S.5(1)(f) of the ISWD Act does not contemplate reference of an interim relief. The
government can’t refer any question to this tribunal for interim relief.
EXTRA:
5. Executive power of undion under art. 73 cant extend to any state with regards to matters
with which the state can legislate. Art. 73 cant extend to a situation when the state has
already decided on the matter under Entry 17 List II. The legislative power of the state
therefore cant be minimized by the executive power of the union.
6. The state law is valid as it was for the preservation protection and maintenance of irrigation
and has nothing to do with water dispure
7. Regarding the presidential reference, it was contended that the president under Art. 1 can
refer any question of law. This enables the court to relook into ant of its old decsions. The
SC therefore can relook into its earlier decision. (did not understand this argument)
8. Such a reference would mean the SC is sitting in appellate authority over the
decision. Here Karnataka referring to the 2G case contended that a matter once
decided by the SC cant be referred under art. 143 because then it would become an
appellate authority. If further clarity on a decision is required, it only needs to
approach the SC under art. 137 for review.

Contentions of state of TN

1. Art. 262(2) read with S.11 of the ISWDT provides that no other court can have jurisdiction
over water disputes. All the power lies with the tribunal only. Though WDT is a quasi
judicial bodu, it has perform full judicial functions, due to express bar of jurisdiction of
other courts.
2. Ordinance is invalid because they didn’t make a law on projects on IS river (As under
Entry 17). The law was w.r.t. to the water dispute itself. State doesn’t have LC except the
Centre under Article 262.
3. The law passed by Karnataka is in violation of art. 245 as there is extra territorial
application of state law to the people of TN too. This can’t be allowed and hence the law
has to be struck down.
4. The law is arbitrary and contrary to the rule of law
5. The law is in violation of the right to life. Further, the law is beyond the scope of what can
be legislated upon. It is not restricted to ust irrigation or projects but decisions of water
disputes too.
UT of Puducherry- The law is a colorable legislation as the state can’t make law for adjudicating
water disputes in the name of laws on irrigation projects.

SC decision- came in favor of TN (Read the Handout)

1. The provisions of the ordinance was to override the decsiions of the court and its
implementation- hence invalid.
2. Karnataka by the law unlawfully deprived other states of its rightful use of Kaveri water
3. It is in direct conflict with parliamentary law as it dealt with water disputes (in conflict with
the ISWD act)
4. Karnataka presumed itself to be the sole judge of the situation- this is wrong.
5. Ordinance
- In direct conflict with decision
- In direct conflict with rule of law
- In direct conflict with federal structure
- It is colorable legislation as it decided on water dispute.

IMPORTANT ARGUMENT: One more argument was made by F.S. Nariman for Karnataka.
President of India under Article 143 can ask the SC for its advice on any question and the SC can
ask the government to reconsider any of its decisions. President can only ask for advice on a
question, until and unless the court has not decided such issue before. If Nariman’s argument was
to be accepted then, it would become an appellate provision to 136 and other provisions. SC said,
it can’t decide Q3 as it has already been decided. Ordinance was declared unconstitutional.

Now since interim reliefs can be granted by the tribunal, Q2 was also answered.

Final report must be published in the gazette as per S. 6 of the ISWD act.

It can be said the SC interfered with the WDs in judicial capacity and also interfered in the
tribunal’s powers.

C- STATE OF KARNATAKA V. STATE OF AP 2001 (KRISHNA WATER DISPUTE)

It consisted of two original suits filed under art. 131 filed by the state of AP and State of Karnataka
(one each).

Q- Whether interpretation and implementation of an award of a WDT whether it amounts

to a water Dispute
The matter here pertained to water sharing of Krishna River water among three three states of
Maharashtra, AP (Now Telangana Too) and Karnataka. The water originates in Maharashtra, flows
to Karnataka then to AP and then into Bay of Bengal. As per the initial agreement and order of
GOI MH, Karnataka and AP were supposed to get 400, 600 and 800 TMC of water. Maharashtra
objected to this and the Krishna WDT was formed. It gave an award and came up with scheme A
(Sharing of Available water) and B (Sharing of Supply water), only the latter being approved by
the central government.

As per the new scheme A- 560, 700 and 800 TMC to be given to MH, Karnataka and AP
respectively, and scheme B provided for sharing of surplus water by constitution of Krishna Valley
Authority (Recommendation left as a goal for implementation). Only Scheme A was notified and
it showed the intention of the government.

Karnataka filed a suit under art. 131 claiming for scheme B to be ratified so that its implementable
on parties; the SC should interfere for full publication of the tribunal award. At the same time, AP
filed a petition stating that the plan shouldn’t even be implemented as it is not implementable, and
that Karnataka shouldn’t be allowed to raise the size of the Arunavati dam from 519 to 524. Height
issue was decided by the tribunal.

Questions before SC:

1. Interpretation of Award
2. Implementation of Award

Both sides contested the jurisdiction of the SC.

SCs jurisdiction- held that they have jurisdiction as the matter pertained to the interpretation and
implementation of an award not the water dispute, hence the jurisdiction is valid.

With regards to the implementation of the scheme B- Karnataka questioned why scheme B wasn’t
notified in the gazette- held it was not enforceable as the award itself said it was just a
recommendation and it was optional. Height issue was decided by the tribunal and SC held that it
could not interfere in the same. SC had a balanced approach.

C-STATE OF PUNJAB V. STATE OF HARYANA 2002 (RAVI-BEAS)

Matter pertained to the sharing of water at the Ravi Beas and Sutlej river. The water was shared
between Delhi, Haryana Punjab and HP. The water division between Punjab and Haryana was
done through the S. 78 of Punjab Reorganization act in 1966. However, there was no provision
for sharing of surplus water.

GoI came up with an order on this regard in 1976 and this provided for sharing of additional
water. However, the natural flow was really bad, and therefore Haryana petitioned for the
construction of the Sutlej Haryali Canal.

When Haryana suggested this, Punjab went to court challenging the 1976 order, subsequent to
which Punjab and Haryana entered into an agreement in 1981. The suit was also withdrawn after
the suit was instituted. The 1981 agreement provided for the construction of the Sutlej Yamunali
canal and Haryana had to give 600 crore to Punjab for this construction. This for the purpose of
bringing water from Punjab to Haryana. Punjab subsequently enacted a legislation
repudiating the contract to construct the dam.

The GoI here interfered and brought about a settlement between Punjab and Haryana, whereby
they asked for the canal to be constructed within the time period, and the matter was also referred
to a Water Disputes Tribunal. Accordingly, a tribunal was constituted in 1987 which stated that
the dam had to be constructed in its award.

Punjab accordingly built 95 percent of the canal, except the last part which connected it to
Haryana, thereby depriving Haryana of any benefits.

Haryana therefore went to SC under Art. 131 seeking a decree asking for a mandatory enforcement
of the 1981 and 1985 agreements.

Punjab- challenged the jurisdiction of the SC stating that the matter is an inter state water dispute
under s.2(c) of the ISWDA, and hence not applicable.

SC- held that this was not a water dispute but is rather a question of implementation of a decision
of a WDT, and therefore they have jurisdiction. They directed Punjab to construct and
complete the Sutlej canal within one year.

Punjab again challenged the decision in 2003 asking for them to be discharged of all
obligations.

SC here asked the UoI to mobilise a central agency to take over construction of the canal, and this
taking over had to be done in 2 weeks. Punjab then passed an act revoking all contracts that it had.
Central govt. then asked SC for advisory opinion, and matter was finally decided in 2017.

(Refer to the Hand-out)

C-ATMA LINGA REDDY V. UOI- Here, the matter pertained to AP having a problem with
Karnataka diverting water for the Sri Swarna Energy Scheme project. Karnataka constructed a
hydroelectric plant diverting 15 TMC of water to AP.

Krishna WDT was in existence.

AP through AL Reddy approached the court under art. 32 claiming a declaration that the writ is
invalid. The SC here held that they don’t have jurisdiction as the matter is a water dispute
under S.2(c) of the WDA. (Refer to Handout)

C-STATE OF ORISSA V. GOI-

Kalahandi river- 154 kms in Orissa side, 24 on border 56 in AP- dam was constructed by Andhra
Pradesh on their side. At the border AP started construction of side channels and flood flow canal.
Orissa Claimed that this was done unilaterally without the consent or approval of the union. If it
was completed it would flood two districts of Orissa completely.

C- STATE OF HP VV. UOI 2011-

Suit under art. 131 with regards to a dispute on greater share of electricity from the Bhakra Nangal
dam by HP in river Beas. Electricity generated mainly benefited Rajasthan.

Electricity was generated in three units and shared between HP, Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan.

50%-Unit 1, 20%-Unit 2, 59%-Unit 3 to Rajasthan and rest to other states.

Remaining electricity

Unit 1: HP(6%), Haryana(39.5%) and Punjab(54.5%).

Unit 2: HP(15%), Haryana(40%) and Punjab(45%).

Unit 3: HP(), Haryana() and Punjab().

HP wanted a larger share and approached the SC under Art. 131.

SC in this dispute rejected contentions by the respondents that this was a water dispute, as it was
a matter of electricity sharing and electricity comes from water. They therefore granted greater
share to HP. As only electricity share was to be decided by the Court.

C- MULLAPERIYAR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FORUM V. UOI-

The mullaperiyar dam is a dam in Kerala, the maintenance and protection of which is given to TN
by a 999 years agreement. Kerala passed a law to maintain the height of the dam at 136 ft (While
TN wanted it to be increased to 142 ft), and also proposed construction of a new dam. This
legislation was against an SC decision which had appointed a commission which recommended an
increase in height to 141 ft. Kerala argued that this would lead to damage in the State of Kerala.
Entire districts could disappear.

SC appointed a three judge bench which found out the dam height could be increased till 146 ft
and it would still be safe. SC ordered the same.

The question here retained to whether the SC can give directions and whether raising the height
of the damn was part of ‘water dispute’. Here, the SC held that it is not a water dispute, but more
regarding safety of dams and validity of the law. Held that they do have jurisdiction and hence the
law is valid.

Kerala passed a law which was struck by SC as it was in direct contravention of the order. The law
declared 136 ft as the height of the damn, it also declared that a new damn shall be constructed.
SC declared that it had jurisdiction in determining safety height, water level and Kerala’s LC to
enact a law.

C- NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. STATE OF MP 2006 –

Only case with regard to SC’s jurisdiction on Narmada River and on Gujarat and MP WD. 1077
KM in MP, 161 in Gujarat, 39 in Maharashtra, and 35 KM on the border of MP and Maharashtra.

It was with regards to the building of the Omkareshwar dam in MP which was challenged n the
ground that it caused harm to life of people and environment around it under Article 32 . MP
challenged the SCs jurisdiction on the ground that it was an inter state water dispute. The SC here
held that it was not a water dispute as it was a matter of construction of a dam.

C- STATE OF KARNATAKA V. STATE OF TN-

The question here was whether the Kaveri dispute could be appealed before the SC.

This was a new argument by UOI to challenge jurisdiction. In 2007 the tribunal gave the award
and it was published in 2013 in the Gazette. Karnataka approached SC under Article 131 and also
made UOI as a respondent. Union challenged the maintainability.
It was contended that it could not as S.6(2) of the ISWDA clearly provides that a decision of the
tribunal is like a decision of the SC. Therefore, the SC couldn’t have sat in appeals over its own
decision. Question was whether SC could look into tribunal award?

Here SC rejected this contention on the ground that it was not a decree of the court itself and
merely had the same value as a court judgement (LIKE A DECREE). Therefore, following the
State of AP v. State of Karnataka decision, the SC held that the interpretation and implementation
of the tribunals decision can be dealt with by the SC.

Girish says its wrong since itself has given powers of WDs, when it has been expressly barred. In
fact, 2018 SC went on to decide on merits of Kaveri Dispute. It increased TN’s share and ordered
for constitution of water board of Cauvery.

Networking of rivers for better sharing of water. This was given as a solution by the president in
his independence day speech in 2002, but nothing happened. Later PILs were filed and SC issued
orders, inviting opinions of all states in the matter. If all rivers are connected, proper distribution
is ensured. All states agreed.

RE NETWORKING OF RIVERS (2012)

The question was whether SC Committee could order networking of rivers. With limited
jurisdiction, SC constituted a 100 member committee for the name.

RE ALOK RAWAT: SC was asked to look at the progress of networking of rivers. SC asked the
Centre to ensure committee’s functioning. Networking is utopian due to its high cost and the
vision and coordination required.

In 2010, committee suggested a central level WD tribunal to amend ISWD Act and Article 262.
Permanent tribunal would be better though, rather than Centre level one. Also suggested to give
SC appellate jurisdiction over tribunals. Nothing much has happened since then. A bill for central
level tribunal is pending though.

C- KACH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI V. UOI- Claim regarding katch not being allotted enough
water by Gujarat was rejected preliminarily by the SC on the ground that it was not an inter state
water dispute as much as it was a part of the everyday activities of the state. Even rejected by HC
of Gujarat. Had SC given a decision it would’ve violated the principle of Separation of Powers.