SC verdict today on its jurisdiction in Cauvery issue

December 09, 2016 03:12 am | Updated 03:12 am IST - NEW DELHI

The Supreme Court will give its verdict on Friday on whether or not Parliament can shackle the Supreme Court’s constitutional powers to hear the appeals filed by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala against the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s final award.

The judgment will be delivered by Justice Dipak Misra, who leads the three-judge Bench hearing the dispute.

The Centre argued that the parliamentary law of Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956, coupled with Article 262 (2) of the Indian Constitution, excluded the Supreme Court from hearing or deciding any appeals against the Cauvery Tribunal’s decision. The tribunal’s award, it said, was final.

Quoting Section 6 (2) of the 1956 Act, the Centre said it was left to the government to frame a scheme for the implementation of the award, and the scheme, once prepared, would be placed before both Houses of Parliament for approval. It argued that the tribunal took on the mantle of the Supreme Court and its award should be treated as the latter’s judgment. Any appeal, therefore, to the Supreme Court against the tribunal’s award would tantamount to an appeal to the Supreme Court challenging its own decision, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi submitted.

All the three States have opposed the Centre’s stand, contending that a parliamentary law cannot stop the Supreme Court from exercising its constitutional power to hear appeals.

Judicial review was part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, Tamil Nadu said. Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, for Tamil Nadu, submitted that Section 6 (2) of the 1956 Act only provided the procedure to be followed by the Centre post the tribunal award. It was not that mere procedure in a statute could negate the Constitution-given powers of the Supreme Court to hear appeals.

Karnataka, represented by senior advocate Fali Nariman, submitted that Parliament cannot restrict the Supreme Court. “Suppose, the tribunal award is flawed in the principles of natural justice or suppose it was given when a tribunal member was absent, making it a coram non judice ... does it become final? The appellate powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 is a discretionary power.... Parliament cannot curtail the Supreme Court’s powers to render justice,” he said.

Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta for Kerala supported the two neighbouring States.

The Bench had, on the day it reserved the verdict, ordered Karnataka to release 2000 cusecs of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu till further orders.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.