The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the mandatory nature of constituting an Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal when negotiations between riparian States fail. In a significant ruling under Article 131 of the Constitution, the Court directed the Central Government to establish a Tribunal within one month to adjudicate the Pennaiyar River water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, emphasizing that Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 imposes a non-discretionary obligation upon the Centre once negotiations reach an impasse.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on the Pennaiyar River, an inter-State river flowing through Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Puducherry. Tamil Nadu, the plaintiff-State, alleged that Karnataka’s construction of check dams and diversion structures across the river and its tributaries - particularly the Markandeyanadhi near Yargol village - violated the 1892 Agreement between the erstwhile Madras and Mysore States. The plaintiff contended that these constructions impeded the natural flow of water, adversely affecting agriculture and livelihoods in downstream districts such as Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri, and Villupuram.
Procedural History
The case progressed through multiple stages:
- 2013: Tamil Nadu officials discovered preliminary construction works by Karnataka, prompting formal objections.
- 2013: Karnataka responded, asserting that the 1892 Agreement ceased to be operative post-independence and that no prior consent was required for such projects.
- 2018: Tamil Nadu filed the present suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, seeking declarations and injunctions against Karnataka’s unilateral actions.
- 2019: The Supreme Court dismissed an interlocutory application for interim relief, noting that 75% of the construction was already complete and that Karnataka had obtained requisite permissions. The Court, however, granted liberty to Tamil Nadu to seek the constitution of a Tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
- 2019: Tamil Nadu lodged a complaint under Section 3 of the 1956 Act, urging the Central Government to constitute a Tribunal.
- 2024-2025: Negotiations at the ministerial level failed, with Tamil Nadu insisting on Tribunal adjudication and Karnataka proposing a negotiated settlement.
Relief Sought
Tamil Nadu sought the following reliefs:
- A declaration that Karnataka’s unilateral construction activities violated the 1892 Agreement and the fundamental rights of Tamil Nadu’s inhabitants.
- A permanent injunction restraining Karnataka from constructing further dams or diversion structures.
- A direction to Karnataka to ensure the natural flow of the Pennaiyar River.
- A mandatory injunction compelling the Union of India to act on Tamil Nadu’s complaint regarding Karnataka’s projects.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the Central Government is mandatorily required to constitute an Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 when negotiations between riparian States fail to resolve the dispute.
Arguments Presented
For the Plaintiff (State of Tamil Nadu)
Tamil Nadu argued that:
- The 1892 Agreement between Madras and Mysore remained binding, requiring Karnataka to obtain prior consent before undertaking any construction on the Pennaiyar River.
- Karnataka’s unilateral actions violated the riparian rights of Tamil Nadu and the principles of equitable apportionment of inter-State river waters.
- The failure of negotiations mandated the constitution of a Tribunal under Section 4 of the 1956 Act, as the dispute could not be resolved through dialogue.
- Reliance was placed on T.N. Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappa Sangam v. Union of India, which held that Tribunal constitution becomes obligatory when negotiations fail.
For the Defendant (State of Karnataka)
Karnataka contended that:
- The 1892 Agreement was a colonial-era arrangement that ceased to be operative after independence, and no prior consent was required for intra-State projects.
- The constructions were undertaken after obtaining all necessary statutory permissions and did not materially affect the flow of water to Tamil Nadu.
- The dispute should be resolved through negotiations, as provided under the 1956 Act, rather than through adjudication.
For the Union of India
The Union of India, through the Additional Solicitor General, submitted that:
- Efforts were made to facilitate negotiations between the States, including at the ministerial level.
- Tamil Nadu’s insistence on Tribunal adjudication led to the indefinite postponement of further negotiations.
The Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, particularly Section 4, which mandates the constitution of a Tribunal when the Central Government is of the opinion that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiations. The Court observed:
"Section 4 indicates that on the basis of the request referred to in Section 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 Section 4 the word ‘may’ was used. Parliament, however, substituted that word by ‘shall’ in the Act. 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 stipulated under Section 4 of the Act."
The Court relied on the precedent in T.N. Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappa Sangam v. Union of India, which held that the Central Government’s obligation to constitute a Tribunal is non-discretionary once negotiations fail. The Court noted that multiple rounds of negotiations, including at the ministerial level, had been attempted but had not yielded a mutually acceptable resolution. Given Tamil Nadu’s firm stand that the dispute should be adjudicated by a Tribunal, the Court concluded that further negotiations would be futile.
The Court also addressed the broader constitutional framework, emphasizing that Article 131 of the Constitution provides an original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for disputes between States or between a State and the Union. However, the Court clarified that the 1956 Act provides a specialized mechanism for resolving inter-State water disputes, and the Court’s role is to ensure that this mechanism is followed in letter and spirit.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court disposed of the suit with the following directions:
- The Central Government is directed to constitute an Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 within one month from the date of the judgment.
- The Tribunal shall adjudicate the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka regarding the Pennaiyar River.
- All questions relating to the reliefs sought by the parties are left open for consideration by the Tribunal.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Tribunal Constitution Is Mandatory Upon Failed Negotiations
The judgment reaffirms that the Central Government cannot exercise discretion in constituting a Tribunal once negotiations under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 fail. Practitioners representing riparian States should:
- Advocate for Tribunal adjudication when negotiations reach an impasse, relying on the mandatory language of Section 4.
- Highlight the precedent in T.N. Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappa Sangam v. Union of India to argue against delays in Tribunal constitution.
Riparian Rights and Equitable Apportionment
- The judgment underscores the importance of riparian rights and equitable apportionment in inter-State water disputes. States must ensure that their projects do not materially affect the rights of downstream States.
- Practitioners should emphasize the need for prior consent or consultation with co-riparian States, particularly where historical agreements or customary practices exist.
Role of Article 131 in Water Disputes
- While Article 131 provides the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction over disputes between States, the Court has clarified that the 1956 Act offers a specialized mechanism for water disputes. Practitioners should:
- Consider invoking Article 131 only when the statutory mechanism under the 1956 Act is not followed or when urgent interim relief is required.
- Use Article 131 proceedings to compel the Central Government to act under the 1956 Act, as was done in this case.
