Inter-State water dispute tribunal powers affirmed: State law cannot override a referred interim order or the adjudicatory process.

A State cannot enact legislation that overrides or nullifies the adjudication of an inter-State water dispute by a tribunal constituted under Article 262. The Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance, 1991 was held beyond State legislative competence because it sought to disregard a binding tribunal order and affect lower riparian rights outside the State. An interim-relief order on a matter validly referred under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act can amount to a report and decision under Section 5(2) when its substance is adjudicatory, and it must be published under Section 6 to take effect. A Water Disputes Tribunal is competent to grant interim relief where that relief has been referred for decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance, 1991 was within the legislative competence of the State and constitutionally valid; (ii) whether the Tribunal's order dated 25 June 1991 constituted a report and decision within Section 5(2) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and was required to be published under Section 6; (iii) whether a Water Disputes Tribunal constituted under the Act was competent to grant interim relief when such relief was referred by the Central Government.

Issue (i): Whether the Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance, 1991 was within the legislative competence of the State and constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The Ordinance was framed to override the Tribunal's interim order and to authorise unilateral appropriation of Cauvery waters notwithstanding any court or tribunal order except a final decision under Section 5(2) read with Section 6 of the Act. The constitutional scheme distinguishes State competence under Entry 17 of List II from Parliament's power under Article 262 to provide for adjudication of inter-State water disputes, with Section 11 of the Act excluding court jurisdiction over such disputes. A State law cannot nullify the adjudicatory process or disregard a binding order of a tribunal constituted under a Central enactment made under Article 262. The impugned law also operated beyond the State's territory by affecting the rights of lower riparian States.

Conclusion: The Ordinance was beyond the legislative competence of the State and was unconstitutional.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's order dated 25 June 1991 constituted a report and decision within Section 5(2) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and was required to be published under Section 6.

Analysis: Section 5(1) authorises reference not only of the main water dispute but also of any matter connected with or relevant to it. A request for interim relief falls within that expression when it is part of the reference. The character of the Tribunal's order depends on its substance, not on the label used. The order was reasoned, operative, and directed implementation by the parties through release of water, regulation of supply, and restriction on further irrigation expansion. It was therefore not a mere procedural direction but an adjudicatory determination meant to be given effect to. Once such a decision is made under Section 5(2), Section 5(3) and Section 6 also apply.

Conclusion: The order constituted a report and decision within Section 5(2) and was required to be published under Section 6 to make it effective.

Issue (iii): Whether a Water Disputes Tribunal constituted under the Act was competent to grant interim relief when such relief was referred by the Central Government.

Analysis: The Act does not exclude interim relief where the Central Government has referred that matter as connected with or relevant to the water dispute. The Court had already held in the earlier proceeding that the request for interim relief formed part of the reference, and that determination bound the parties. A tribunal charged with adjudicating a water dispute may pass interim orders on the material available at that stage, even though the investigation is not final, so long as the matter of interim relief is within the reference.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was competent to grant interim relief when the Central Government referred that relief for adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The advisory opinion upheld the Tribunal's authority to decide the referred interim-relief matter, treated its interim order as effective under the Act, and invalidated the Karnataka Ordinance as a constitutionally impermissible attempt to override the adjudicatory process.

Ratio Decidendi: A State cannot enact a law that nullifies or overrides the adjudication of an inter-State water dispute by a tribunal constituted under Article 262, and an interim order on a matter validly referred to such tribunal may constitute a report and decision under Section 5(2) of the Act.

---