Supreme Court Orders Water Disputes Tribunal Creation

The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal within six months in response to a writ petition filed by the State of Orissa. The Court also ordered the State of Andhra Pradesh to maintain the status quo on construction of a project until the Tribunal's formation to prevent irreparable harm. Justice Markandey Katju emphasized the broader issue of water scarcity in India and recommended scientific solutions to address the crisis. The judgment highlights the significance of timely adjudication of inter-state water disputes and the necessity of interim measures to protect parties' interests.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitution of a Water Disputes Tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.
2. Interim relief to restrain the State of Andhra Pradesh from continuing construction of the Side Channel Weir and Flood Flow Canal Project at Katragada.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitution of a Water Disputes Tribunal:

The State of Orissa filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the Central Government to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. The petition was based on a complaint dated 13th February 2006, alleging that the State of Andhra Pradesh's construction of a Side Channel Weir and Flood Flow Canal Project on the river Vansadhara would adversely affect Orissa's water supply and the livelihood of its people, violating Article 21 of the Constitution. The river Vansadhara flows through both states, with significant portions in Orissa, and the dispute centers on the equitable sharing of its waters.

Orissa's contention was that the dispute qualified as a "water dispute" under Section 2(c) of the 1956 Act, which includes disputes regarding the use, distribution, or control of inter-state river waters. Orissa argued that Andhra Pradesh's project would deprive its inhabitants of necessary water, thus necessitating the constitution of a Tribunal for adjudication.

The Central Government, as per its counter affidavit, had taken steps for a negotiated settlement but had not constituted a Tribunal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the amendment to Section 4 of the 1956 Act, effective from 28.3.2002, mandates the constitution of a Tribunal within one year of receiving a request if negotiations fail. The Court noted the inaction of the Central Government despite the lapse of almost three years since the complaint.

The Court referred to a precedent in the Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu Sangam v. Union of India, where it was held that the Central Government must constitute a Tribunal under Section 4 of the 1956 Act. The Court concluded that the dispute between Orissa and Andhra Pradesh constituted a water dispute under Section 2(c)(i) of the 1956 Act and directed the Central Government to constitute a Tribunal within six months.

2. Interim Relief:

Orissa also sought an interim order to restrain Andhra Pradesh from continuing construction until the Tribunal's constitution. The Court recognized that without interim protection, Orissa's objections would become infructuous, rendering the Tribunal's formation redundant. The Court noted that while Section 9 of the 1956 Act empowers the Tribunal to grant interim orders, the Supreme Court under Article 32 has jurisdiction to pass interim orders to preserve the status quo until the Tribunal is constituted.

In response to Andhra Pradesh's argument that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 11 of the 1956 Act, the Court clarified that the bar on jurisdiction applies only after the Tribunal is constituted. Until then, the Court can provide interim relief to prevent irreparable harm.

The Court directed Andhra Pradesh to maintain the status quo regarding the construction of the Side Channel Weir and Flood Flow Canal at Katragada until the Tribunal is constituted. Once constituted, the parties could seek further interim orders from the Tribunal.

Separate Judgment by Markandey Katju, J.:

Justice Markandey Katju concurred with the judgment and added observations on the broader issue of water scarcity in India. He highlighted the severe water shortages despite India's vast water resources and the need for scientific solutions. He recommended the Central Government constitute a body of eminent scientists to find inexpensive methods for converting saline water to fresh water, utilizing Himalayan ice, managing rainwater, and harnessing floodwaters. He emphasized that the right to water is part of the right to life under Article 21 and urged immediate action to address the water crisis.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Central Government to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal within six months and ordered Andhra Pradesh to maintain the status quo on construction until the Tribunal's formation. The judgment underscores the importance of timely adjudication of inter-state water disputes and the need for interim measures to prevent irreparable harm.

---