SC schedules day-to-day hearings on Cauvery appeals from Feb 7

Mandya Karnataka 27_October_2016 : The Cauvery river near the Krishnaraja Sagar (KRS) reservoir in Srirangapatna of Mandya district on October 27, 2016. As the State government complying with the Supreme Courts October 18th direction of discharging 2,000 cusecs a day to Tamil Nadu till it gives further orders, the level in the KRS has plummeted to 78.70 ft. on October 27, 2016. Mandya Karnataka 27_October_2016 : The Cauvery river near the Krishnaraja Sagar (KRS) reservoir in Srirangapatna of Mandya district on October 27, 2016. As the State government complying with the Supreme Courts October 18th direction of discharging 2,000 cusecs a day to Tamil Nadu till it gives further orders, the level in the KRS has plummeted to 78.70 ft. on October 27, 2016. - Mandya Karnataka 27_October_2016 : The Cauvery river near the Krishnaraja Sagar (KRS) reservoir in Srirangapatna of Mandya district on October 27, 2016. As the State government complying with the Supreme Courts October 18th direction of discharging 2,000 cusecs a day to Tamil Nadu till it gives further orders, the level in the KRS has plummeted to 78.70 ft. on October 27, 2016.

The Supreme Court asked Karnataka to continue releasing 2000 cusecs of Cauvery water to neighbouring State of Tamil Nadu while posting appeals filed by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala against the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal's decision on water-sharing for day-to-day hearing.

Stressing the urgency to resolve the prolonged water dispute at the earliest, a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy and A.M. Khanwilkar scheduled the back-to-back hearings from February 7 for a period of three weeks.

The Bench did not find favour with submissions made by senior advocate Shekhar Naphade for Tamil Nadu that aninterim order should be passed on the constitution of the Cauvery Management Board.

“Several years have gone by...the river is perennial but the litigation should not be,” Mr. Naphade submitted.

Karnataka counsel and senior advocate Fali Nariman objected to Tamil Nadu's plea. The Bench agreed with Mr. Nariman, observing that its primary focus was the appeals filed by the States.

“We will hear appeals. The direction to set up the Board is a part of the Tribunal's order,” Justice Misra said.

Advocate Mohan Katarki, State counsel for Karnataka, countered a contention raised by Tamil Nadu that it has seen a shortage of 4.8 TMC ft of water from Karnataka.

Mr. Katarki submitted that there may be a deficit of less than one TMC ft and this would be compensated by supplying the requisite water by January 31. Tamil Nadu submitted that the north-east monsoon had failed completely and it was suffering from a 67 per cent deficit of water. However, the Bench refused to deliberate this issue, saying it has already spent “considerable time” on it.

On December 9, the Supreme Court, in a judgment, had refused the Centre's stand that the apex court lacked jurisdiction to hear the Cauvery river dispute. It had upheld the constitutional power of the court to hear the appeals filed by the three States against the tribunal award.

The Centre had 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 Centre had claimed the tribunal award was final.

The Bench however held that the remedy under Article 136 was a constitutional right and it cannot be taken away by alegislation much less by invoking the principle of election or estoppel.

“The jurisdiction exercised by this court under Article 136 is an extraordinary jurisdiction which empowers this court to grant leave to appeal from any judgment, decree or determination in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal and the scope of this Article has been settled in numerous decisions,” the Supreme Court observed.

Further, the Bench had held that it was settled law that the Supreme Court could not take cognisance of an original inter-State water dispute, and this alone was the original intent of the Constitution under Article 262. The court held that once a water dispute, as defined under Article 262(1) read with provisions of the 1956 Act, is adjudicated by the tribunal, it loses the nature of 'original dispute'.