2016 (12) TMI 1796 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court retains jurisdiction over water matters beyond formal disputes under Article 262 and Section 11 of 1956 Act

State of Karnataka Versus State of Tamil Nadu and Ors

The SC held that Article 262 and Section 11 of the 1956 Act do not completely oust the Court's jurisdiction in water disputes. The Court distinguished ... Interpretation of statute - water dispute - whether the language employed Under Article 262 intends to oust the jurisdiction of this Court on all scores and counts? - fundamental rights of the citizens. HELD THAT:- Having stated about the extent of jurisdiction of this Court Under Article 136 of the Constitution and upon taking note of the precedents pertaining to sphere of Article 262 read with Section 11 of the 1956 Act, we may state that what is excluded under the Constitution is the dispute or complaint. The term ‘dispute’, as has been held in Gujarat State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad and Ors. [1979 (1) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT], means a controversy having both positive and negative aspects. In Canara Bank and Ors. v. National Thermal Power Corporation and Anr. [2000 (12) TMI 839 - SUPREME COURT], the term ‘dispute’ has been interpreted to mean that there is a postulation of an assertion of a claim by one party and denial by the other. The term ‘dispute’ may be given a broad meaning or a narrow meaning and the 1956 Act gives it a broad meaning, as has been held by this Court. When the principles of statutory interpretation is applied to understand the legislative intendment of Section 6(2) it is clear as crystal that the Parliament did not intend to create any kind of embargo on the jurisdiction of this Court. The said provision was inserted to give the binding effect to the award passed by the tribunal. The fiction has been created for that limited purpose. Section 11 of the 1956 Act, as stated earlier, bars the jurisdiction of the courts and needless to say, that is in consonance with the language employed in Article 262 of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had not conferred the power on this Court to entertain an original suit or complaint and that is luminescent from the language employed in Article 131 of the Constitution and from the series of pronouncements of this Court. Be it clearly stated that Section 6 cannot be interpreted in an absolute mechanical manner and the words “same force as on order or decision” cannot be treated as a decree for the purpose for excluding the jurisdiction of this Court. The Civil Appeals are maintainable - Let the Appeals be listed at 3 p.m. on 15.12.2016 for further orders. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 262 of the Constitution and Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.3. Interpretation of Section 6(2) of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 regarding the finality of the Tribunal's decision.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Appeals by Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution:The primary issue was whether appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution were maintainable against the final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal. The Court noted that Article 136 vests the Supreme Court with plenary jurisdiction to entertain appeals against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India.The Court emphasized that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to oust the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136, even in matters of inter-State river water disputes. The Court referred to several precedents to underline that Article 136 is a constitutional provision that cannot be limited or taken away by ordinary legislation.The Court concluded that the appeals by special leave under Article 136 were maintainable, as the final order of the Tribunal does not fall within the ambit of 'dispute' or 'complaint' as mentioned in Article 262(1) and Section 11 of the 1956 Act. The term 'dispute' refers to the original dispute or complaint and not to the adjudicated decision.2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 262 of the Constitution and Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956:The Court examined whether Article 262 and Section 11 of the 1956 Act ousted the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain appeals against the Tribunal's decisions. Article 262 empowers Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in disputes relating to inter-State river waters. Section 11 of the 1956 Act bars the jurisdiction of courts in respect of any water dispute referred to a Tribunal.The Court clarified that the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 262 and Section 11 pertains to the original disputes or complaints and not to the adjudicated decisions of the Tribunal. The Court referred to previous judgments, including the Constitution Bench decision in In Re: Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, which held that the Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of original disputes but can interpret the provisions of the 1956 Act and determine the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.The Court concluded that its jurisdiction under Article 136 was not ousted by Article 262 or Section 11, as the appeals were against the final adjudicated decision of the Tribunal and not the original dispute.3. Interpretation of Section 6(2) of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956:Section 6(2) of the 1956 Act states that the decision of the Tribunal, after its publication in the Official Gazette, shall have the same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court. The Union of India argued that this provision ousted the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain appeals against the Tribunal's decision.The Court interpreted Section 6(2) to mean that the Tribunal's decision has the same enforceability as an order or decree of the Supreme Court, ensuring its binding effect. However, the Court held that this provision does not imply that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 is ousted. The legal fiction created by Section 6(2) was intended to make the Tribunal's decision binding and enforceable, not to exclude the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.The Court emphasized that the legal fiction should be interpreted narrowly and within the purpose for which it was created. The provision was meant to ensure the binding nature of the Tribunal's decision and not to prevent the Supreme Court from exercising its appellate jurisdiction.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that the appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution were maintainable against the final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal. The Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 was not ousted by Article 262 of the Constitution or Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. Section 6(2) of the 1956 Act, which gives the Tribunal's decision the same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court, was interpreted to ensure the binding effect of the decision, not to exclude the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.