TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the two States would appositely melt. The matter was adjourned to 30th of September, 2016 and on that day, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India apprised this Court that the meeting had been held under the Chairmanship of Union Minister of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation and the Minutes of the said meeting were produced before the Court. The Minutes indicated that despite best efforts to make both the States to arrive at a consensus on release of Cauvery water, they took such divergent stands as a consequence of which nothing could be resolved. After noting various aspects, the Court enquired from the learned Attorney General with regard to constitution of the Cauvery Management Board to which he responded that the Board would be constituted on or before 4th of October, 2016. Keeping in view the submissions, the Court directed the States, namely, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala and Union Territory of Puducherry to nominate their respective representatives as per the final order passed by the tribunal. The earlier order to release 6000 cusecs of water was reiterated. The matter was adjourned to 6th of October, 2016. 2. Before the matter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per day on an average limited for a period of 10 days from 7th October, to 16th October, 2016. Mr. Naik and Mr. Mohan submitted that from 5.09.2016 to 30.09.2016, State of Karnataka has released 17.5 TMC of water. The said aspect has been disputed by Mr. Naphade after obtaining instructions. According to him, the State of Karnataka has released 16.9 TMC of water. Learned senior Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu would submit that the State of Karnataka is in deficit of 4.6 TMC of water for the month of September and State of Karnataka under the final order of the Tribunal is required to give 22 TMC of water for the month of October. If the note of the State of Karnataka is taken into consideration, 3.1 TMC of water will be released between 1.10.2016 to 6.10.2016. The learned Advocate General submitted that he has filed the note after obtaining instructions. Mr. Nariman would contend that this Court should confine the release to the instructions obtained by the learned Advocate General as a real plight faced by the inhabitants of State of Karnataka. Before we enter into the said arena, we think it appropriate to dwell upon the facet relating to have a report pertaining to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cherry also submitted that a Chief Engineer from Puducherry shall also be included in the team. It is so directed. They shall also be included in the team. The said team shall go to the area in question and submit a report relating to the ground reality before this Court on 17.10.2016. Needless to say, the report shall be served on the learned Counsel for the parties prior to that. Let the I. As. and appeals be listed on 18.10.2016. Needless to say, the I. As., objections thereto and the report shall be considered on 18.10.2016. Registry is also directed to list the appeals on that day. As far as the interim arrangement is concerned till 18.10.2016, we direct that the State of Karnataka shall release 2000 cusecs of water from 7.10.2016 till 18.10.2016. 3. On 18th of October, 2016, the learned Attorney General being assisted by learned Additional Solicitor General filed the report of the Committee which pertained to social aspects and technical aspects. It is worthy to note that the Committee had not suggested anything with regard to quantity of water that could be released by the State of Karnataka. At that point of time, learned Attorney General submitted that the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Ors. (1991) Supp (1) SCC 240. 5. It is further propounded by Mr. Rohatgi that the 1956 Act framed by Parliament is a complete code in itself and if the scheme of the said Act is scrutinized and appreciated in proper perspective, it is clear as crystal that this Court has no jurisdiction to exercise the appellate power by granting leave. The said submission is sought to be pyramided by placing reliance on Section 6(2) of the 1956 Act which provides that decision of the tribunal after its publication in the Official Gazette by the Central Government shall have the force of an order or decree of the Supreme Court. Elucidating the said aspect, it is contended by him that once the statutory provision postulates that the award has the same force as that of the decree of this Court, there cannot be an appeal assailing the same, for the simon pure reason that the concept of intra-court appeal is alien to the adjudicatory process of this Court and remotely not conceived of under the constitutional scheme or by any precedent. For the said purpose, he has drawn inspiration from the authority in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 388. 6. Mr. Nariman, learned senior....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unachalam and Anr. (1980) 3 SCC 141, Union Carbide Corporation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 584, Prashant Ramachandra Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti (1995) Supp (2) SCC 539, Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy (2005) 1 SCC 481, U. Sree v. U. Srinivas (2013) 2 SCC 114 and Mathai v. George and Anr. (2010) 4 SCC 358 and the exercise of the said power by the Court has not been curtailed by the original constitutional provision, that is, Article 262 and could not have been crippled by any statutory provision and, in fact, has not been taken away by the 1956 Act, for it has its source in Article 262 which does not so envisage. 7. In reply to the submission pertaining to Section 6(2) of the 1956 Act that the final order by the tribunal once published in the Gazette has the force of an order or decree of this Court, it is argued by him that the said provision, by no means, deprives this Court to interfere with such decision by way of appeal by special leave because it is a decision rendered by the tribunal and a tribunal always remains a tribunal, for all purposes, and it is impossible to draw the inference that it ousts the jurisdiction of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al of power of judicial review to this Court Under Article 136 of the Constitution would be an obstruction in the process of adjudication and justifiable decision making process, for it is the duty of the tribunal to render a decision which should be made by application of established principles of law, namely, adherence to principles of natural justice, good conscience, absence of arbitrariness, just and appropriate appreciation of evidence on record, showing respect for precedents, demonstrable ratiocination that would show application of mind and in such an adjudicatory process, it is inconceivable that the founding fathers of the Constitution had contemplated creation of a tribunal with unguided, uncontrolled or uncanalised judicial powers. He has anchored on the authority P. Sambamurthy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (1987) 1 SCC 362 to bolster the proposition that it is a basic principle of Rule of law that exercise of power by any authority must not only be conditioned by the Constitution but must also be in accordance with law and that power of judicial review is conferred by the Constitution with a view to ensure that the supremacy of law is sustained. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y proceeding pertaining to a dispute or complaint as regards the use, distribution or control of the waters or in any inter-State river or river valley, and the arguments advanced in oppugnation by the learned senior Counsel for the States involved. 12. Article 131 defines the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which reads as follows: 131. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute (a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or (b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or (c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends: Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagements, and or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng in Article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court under Clause (1) may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly decided (3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of a High Court. 134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters (1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court - (a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or (b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or (c) certifies Under Article 134-A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court: Provided that an appeal under sub Clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernment of India and one or more States, or (b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other, or (c) between two or more States. If in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends: Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to - (i) a dispute to which a State for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule is a party, if the dispute arises out of any provision of a treaty, agreement, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which was entered into or executed before the date of commencement of this Constitution and has; or has been; continued in operation after that date; (ii) a dispute to which any State is a party, if the dispute arises out of any provision of a treaty, agreement, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute. 17. The draft Article 112 was couched in the following language: 112. The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the armed forces, discipline would vanish. I must say that that is an argument against which there is no reply. That is why Clause (2) has been added in Article 112 by this particular amendment and a similar provision is made in the provisions relating to the powers of superintendence of the High Courts. That is my justification why it is now proposed to put in Clause (2) of Article 112. 22. With this background, Article 136 has been given the shape as it is found in the Constitution today. Article 32 of the Constitution, which occurs in Part III, deals with fundamental rights. It provides for remedies for enforcement of the rights conferred by the said Part of the Constitution. The said Article reads as follows: 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the ri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advocate new rights that the globe perceives. But the authority conferred Under Article 32 has its limitations when the lis Under Article 262 emerges. It is interesting to note that the Constitution has not provided machinery for resolution of the disputes in the Constitution but has empowered the Parliament to make laws to provide to exclude the power of the Supreme Court or any other court with regard to jurisdiction in respect of complaints or disputes that find mention in Article 262(1). The 1956 Act bars the exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 32 of the Constitution. In spite of the same, there is certain scope for exercise of jurisdiction. In this context, we may refer to certain authorities. 26. In State of Orissa v. Government of India and Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 492 Kabir, J. (as His Lordship then was) taking note of the fact that though a complaint had been made by the State of Orissa, yet the Central Government had not taken any action in the matter and further considering the facts in issue, opined that the controversy that had arisen between the States of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh must be held to be a "water dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(c)(i) of the 1956 Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pradesh will maintain status quo as of date with regard to the construction of the side channel weir and the flood flow canal at Katragada. Once the Tribunal is constituted the parties will be free to apply for further interim orders before the Tribunal. 28. At this juncture, we may hasten to add that we have referred to the aforesaid authority only for the sake of stating how and under what circumstances the Court had exercised jurisdiction Under Article 32 of the Constitution. And nothing more. 29. In this context, it is seemly to refer to the authority Networking of Rivers, In Re (supra) wherein a three-Judge Bench was dealing with a writ petition filed Under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the relief for issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 therein to take appropriate steps/action to nationalize all the rivers in the country. That apart, further directions were also sought. Interpreting Article 262 of the Constitution, the Court held: 66. ... Under the constitutional scheme, there is a clear demarcation of fields of operation and jurisdiction between the legislat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... forward with a sense of sincerity and a desire for its completion. 72. In a more recent judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. (supra) a Constitution Bench of this Court took the view that in Section 11 of the Act, the expression "use, distribution and control of water in any river" are the keywords in determination of the scope of power conferred on a Tribunal constituted Under Section 3 of the Act. If a matter fell outside the scope of these three crucial words, the power of Section 11 in ousting the jurisdiction of the courts in respect of any water dispute, which is otherwise to be referred to the Tribunal, would not have any manner of application. The test of maintainability of a legal action initiated by a State in a court would thus be, whether the issues raised therein are referable to a Tribunal for adjudication of the manner of use, distribution and control of water. [Emphasis supplied] 30. This is how this Court has perceived the test of maintainability of an action initiated by a State in the context of Article 32 of the Constitution to sustain a legal action before this Court, that is, the lis must fall outside the scope of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efer the question to the Supreme Court, ("shall refer") under Draft Article 119 (now Article 143 of the Constitution), and on receipt of the Opinion of the Supreme Court thereon, the President would return the Report to the Commission together with the opinion on the substantial question of law by the Supreme Court and the Commission had to thereupon make ("shall make") such modifications in the Report as were necessary to bring it in accord with the opinion of the Supreme Court and present the Report so modified to the President; (f) Effects had to be given in any State to any order made by the President and any act of the Legislature of a State repugnant to the Presidential order would be, to the extent of repugnancy, void; and (g) "Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution neither the Supreme Court nor any other Court would have jurisdiction to entertain any action or suit in respect of any matter if action in respect of that matter might have been taken under any of the preceding Articles by the Government of a State or the President. 33. The actual Articles in the Draft Constitution prepared by the Drafting Committee on 21.02.1948 read as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and an order made by the President under this article, in so far as it relates to expensed or costs, may be enforced as if it were an order made by the Supreme Court. (6) After considering any report made to him by the Commission the President shall, subject as hereinafter provided, make orders in accordance with the report. (7) If upon consideration of the Commission's report the President is of the opinion that anything therein contained involves a substantial question of law he shall refer the question to the Supreme Court Under Article 119 of this Constitution and on receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court thereon shall, unless the Supreme Court has agreed with the Commission's report, return the report to the Commission together with the opinion and the Commission shall thereupon make such modifications in the report as may be necessary to bring it in accord with such opinion and present the report as so modified to the President. (8) Effect shall be given, if any State affected, to any order made under this Article by the President, and any Act of the Legislature of a State which is repugnant to the order shall, to the extent of the repugnancy,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ower on the Supreme Court, the law relating to basic structure or judicial review would not apply as jurisdiction or authority has not been conferred at the commencement of the Constitution. As indicated earlier, Mr. Nariman and Mr. Naphade appearing for the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu respectively would contend that it is neither the intention of the founding fathers of the Constitution nor the language employed in the said Article even remotely so suggest that the architects of the Constitution had ever intended that a final order passed by a tribunal created by the Parliament for adjudication would be free from challenge and remain absolutely immune from assail. 35. In this backdrop, it is necessary to peruse and analyse the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the parties. The Constitution Bench in In Re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (supra) was dealing with the reference made by the President Under Article 143 of the Constitution wherein three questions were referred for the opinion of this Court. As the factual matrix would show, in pursuance of direction given by this Court in Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugapp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 1956 Act and in that context, ruled that: 12. A perusal of the above provisions leaves no manner of doubt that notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, Parliament is authorised by law to provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any dispute or complaint relating to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any interstate river or river valley. The dispute referred by the Central Government to the Tribunal under the Act relates to the above controversy and as such this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the merits of the dispute raised by the Appellants and pending before the Tribunal. The controversy, however raised by the Appellants in these appeals is that they had submitted the applications before the Tribunal for granting interim relief on the ground of emergency till the final disposal of the dispute and the Tribunal wrongly held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The Tribunal is a statutory authority constituted under an Act made by the Parliament and this Court has jurisdiction to decide the parameters, scope, authority and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is the judic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall be left with no remedy for the enforcement of their rights. xxxxx 22. The above passage clearly goes to show that the State of Tamil Nadu was claiming for an immediate relief as year after year, the realisation at Mettur was falling fast and thousands of acres in their ayacut in the basin were forced to remain fallow. It was specifically mentioned that the inordinate delay in solving the dispute is taken advantage of by the Government of Karnataka in extending their canal systems and their ayacut in the new projects and every day of delay is adding to the injury caused to their existing irrigation. The Tribunal was thus clearly wrong in holding that the Central Government had not made any reference for granting any interim relief. We are not concerned, whether the Appellants are entitled or not, for any interim relief on merits, but we are clearly of the view that the reliefs prayed by the Appellants in their C.M.P. Nos. 4, 5 and 9 of 1990 clearly come within the purview of the dispute referred by the Central Government Under Section 5 of the Act. The Tribunal has not held that it had no incidental and ancillary powers for granting an interim relief, but it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Article 143 of the Constitution. 38. While dealing with question No. 1, that is, whether the Ordinance and the provisions thereof are in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Court referred to Article 131 and thereafter opined thus: 56. It is clear from the Article that this Court has original jurisdiction, among other things, in any dispute between two or more States where the dispute involves any question whether of law or fact on which the existence and extent of a legal right depends except those matters which are specifically excluded from the said jurisdiction by the proviso. However, the Parliament has also been given power by Article 262 of the Constitution to provide by law that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the water of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley. Section 11 of the Act, namely, the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 has in terms provided for such exclusion of the jurisdiction of the courts. It reads as follows: 11. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, nei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstitution Bench, this Court cannot take cognizance of an original dispute or complaint, but within that purview the assail to final order of the tribunal does not come and hence, the power of the Court in that regard remains unaffected. 40. In State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. (supra), another Constitution Bench was dealing with a suit filed Under Article 131 of the Constitution. While expressing the opinion, Pattanaik, J. (as His Lordship then was) has held: 24. Article 131 being subject to the other provisions of the Constitution including Article 262, if Parliament has made any law for adjudication of any water dispute or a dispute relating to distribution or control of water in any inter-State river or river valley, then such a dispute cannot be raised before the Supreme Court Under Article 131, even if the dispute be one between the Centre or the State or between two States. In exercise of constitutional power Under Article 262(1), Parliament, in fact has enacted the law called the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and Section 11 of the said Act provides that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er-State river or river valley. Article 262 is specific as regards adjudication of disputes pertaining to water whereas Article 131 provides for a general power and conferment of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the event of there being any dispute between two States etc. etc. There is neither any conflict between Article 262 and Article 131 nor, thus, the fields covered therein overlap each other, a specific exclusion has been thought of by our Constitution-framers and been provided for in the Constitution. The learned Judge referred to authority in the earlier Constitution Bench decision rendered in In Re: Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (supra) to express the aforesaid view. 43. The said pronouncement has to be appreciated in a seemly perspective. The issue arose whether the suit filed Under Article 131 of the Constitution pertained to water dispute which required to be referred to the tribunal under the 1956 Act. In that context, the Court opined that if it is a water dispute, jurisdiction of this Court is excluded but Court has to see the averments in the plaint. It has also been opined that there is no conflict between Article 131 and Article 262 of the Constit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the interpretation or implementation of the agreement of such waters. After so observing, the Court held that the dispute in the said case was not one contemplated by Section 2(c) of the 1956 Act. The Court so held as the main issue was about the safety of the dam on increase of the water level and for determining the said issue, neither Article 262 of the Constitution nor the provisions of the 1956 Act had any applicability. Being of this view, it repelled the contention that the jurisdiction of the Court in regard to the controversy raised was barred Under Article 262 read with Section 11 of the 1956 Act. 46. In Atma Linga Reddy (supra), a writ petition was filed by the Petitioners as pro bono publico praying for issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the State of Karnataka and Sree Swarna Energy Limited from constructing a mini hydro power project at Rajolibanda Diversion Scheme (RDS), Raichur District, Karnataka by quashing and cancelling the power project. A prayer was also made to direct the State of Karnataka to regulate water at RDS anicut and to ensure smooth flow of water in RDS canal to the extent of full allocated water of 15.9 TMC t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed on behalf of the contesting Respondents are well founded and are required to be upheld. We have already extracted the relevant provisions of the Constitution as also of Act 33 of 1956. The Founding Fathers of the Constitution were aware and conscious of sensitive nature of inter-State disputes relating to waters. They, therefore, provided machinery for adjudication of such disputes relating to waters of inter-State rivers or river valleys. By enacting Article 262, they empowered Parliament to enact a law providing for adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of waters of any inter-State river or river valley. They, however, did not stop there. They went ahead and empowered Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts including the final court of the country in such disputes. The intention of framers of the Constitution, in our opinion, was clear, obvious and apparent. It was thought proper and appropriate to deal with and decide such sensitive issues once and for all by a law made by Parliament. 48. Thereafter, the Court referred to Clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1956 Act that defines "water dispute" and Section 3 whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and opined that when a contention is raised that a suit filed Under Article 131 of the Constitution is barred Under Article 262(2) of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the 1956 Act, what is necessary to be found out is whether the assertions made in the plaint and the relief sought for, by any stretch of imagination, can be held to constitute a water dispute so as to oust the jurisdiction of this Court Under Article 131 of the Constitution. Thereafter the Court proceeded to hold that from the assertions made in the entire plaint as well as the reliefs claimed therein by the Plaintiff, the dispute did not relate to inter-State river water issue or the use thereof, and actually relate to sharing of power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and the Beas Projects and such a dispute did not attract the law was not barred under Clause (2) of Article 262 of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the 1956 Act. Thus, the emphasis was laid on the nature of the dispute in the context of exercise of original jurisdiction. 50. The crux of the matter is whether the interpretation placed by this Court on the aforesaid decisions lays down the ratio that Article 262 read with Section 11 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lating to the use, distribution or control of such waters, the State Government may, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, request the Central Government to refer the water dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication. 52. Section 5 provides for adjudication of water disputes. Section 11 stipulates that neither the Supreme Court nor any other Court shall have or exercise jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to a tribunal under the 1956 Act. The tribunal is constituted when a request is made Under Section 3 from any State Government in respect of any water dispute. Section 4 of the 1956 Act provides that the Central Government shall constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal if it is of the opinion that the water dispute cannot be settled by negotiations. The 1956 Act, as we perceive, is in consonance with Article 262 which empowers the Parliament to provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint but the same has to pertain to Article 262(1). 53. Thus, the bar on the jurisdiction of this Court has to be in accord with the language employed in Article 262(1). Section 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of any body or tribunal constituted under the statute. 54. At this stage, we may also refer to the scope of certain aspects which have been highlighted by Mr. Nariman, learned senior Counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka. According to him, the protective, preclusive or ouster clauses are to be construed strictly. He has relied on the classic text of Administrative Law by Sir William Wade (9th Edn.) wherein it has been said that "... first it must be stressed that there is a presumption against any restriction of the supervisory powers of the court". He has also relied upon case of R. v. Medical Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore (1957) 1 QB 574 [at 583] wherein Denning LJ said that "I find it very well settled that the remedy by certiorari is never to be taken away by any statute except by the most clear and explicit words." Lord Reid in the Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 AC 147 [at 170C-D] has recalled that: It is a well established principle that a provision ousting the ordinary jurisdiction of the court must be construed strictly - meaning, I think that, if such a provision is reasonably capable of having two meanings, that meaning sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of a particular Tribunal to be final and conclusive, that there was an intention to exclude the exercise of the special powers. As has been said already, the non obstante Clause in Article 329 prohibits challenge to an election either to Parliament or any State Legislature, except in the manner laid down in Clause (2) of the article. But there is no prohibition of the exercise of its powers by the Supreme Court in proper cases Under Article 136 of the Constitution against the decision or determination of an Election Tribunal which like all other judicial, tribunals comes within the purview of the article. It is certainly desirable that the decisions on matters of disputed election should, as soon as possible, become final and conclusive so that the constitution of the Legislature may be distinctly and speedily known. But the powers Under Article 136 are exercisable only under exceptional circumstances. The Article does not create any general right of appeal from decisions of all Tribunals. Though the context is different, we have referred to the said authority to appreciate the width and plentitude of power Under Article 136 of the Constitution. That apart, the said au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the power of the Supreme Court is not circumscribed by any limitation as to who may invoke it. 60. In P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam (supra) this Court (speaking through Justice Krishna Iyer) held that: ....Article 136 is a special jurisdiction. It is residuary power; it is extraordinary in its amplitude, its limit, when it chases injustice, is the sky itself. This Court functionally fulfils itself by reaching out to injustice wherever it is and this power is largely derived in the common run of cases from Article 136. Is if merely a power in the court to be exercised in any manner it fancies? Is there no procedural limitation in the manner of exercise and the occasion for exercise? Is there no duty to act fairly while hearing a case Under Article 136, either in the matter of grant of leave or, after such grant, in the final disposal of the appeal? We have hardly any doubt that here is a procedure necessarily implicit in the power vested in the summit court. It must be remembered that Article 136 confers jurisdiction on the highest court. The founding fathers unarguably intended in the very terms of Article 136 that it shall be exercised by the highest judges of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (v) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record. We have referred to the aforesaid authorities solely for the purpose of accentuating the nature of jurisdiction exercised by this Court Under Article 136. 64. 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) 3 SCC 123, means a controversy having both positive and negative aspects. In Canara Bank and Ors. v. National Thermal Power Corporation and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 43, the term 'dispute' has been interpreted to mean that there is a postulation of an assertion of a claim by one party and denial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the end of Article 136(2) the words "or to any determination of any tribunal constituted under the law made by Parliament Under Article 262(2)" and, in such a situation, in all possibility such an amendment to the Constitution may be ultra vires affecting the power of judicial review which is a part of basic feature of the Constitution. Learned senior Counsel for the Respondent has drawn a distinction between the conferment and the exclusion of the power of the Supreme Court of India by the original Constitution and any exclusion by the constitutional amendment. Be that as it may, the said aspect need not be adverted to, as we are only required to interpret Section 6(2) as it exists today on the statute book. The said provision has been inserted to provide teeth to the decision of the tribunal after its publication in the official gazette by the Central Government and this has been done keeping in view the Sarkaria Commission's Report on Centre-State relations (1980). The relevant extract of the Sarkaria Commission's Report reads as follows: 17.4.19 The Act was amended in 1980 and Section 6A was inserted. This Section provides for framing a scheme for giving effect to a Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion by which it is created4. It cannot also be extended by importing another fiction5. The principles stated above are 'well-settled'.6 A legal fiction may also be interpreted narrowly to make the statute workable.7 71. In Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours (2012) 5 SCC 661, a three-Judge Bench has ruled thus: 37. In State of T.N. v. Arooran Sugars Ltd. (1997) 1 SCC 326 the Constitution Bench, while dealing with the deeming provision in a statute, ruled that the role of a provision in a statute creating legal fiction is well settled. Reference was made to Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karam Chand Thapar AIR 1961 SC 838, J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Union of India: 1987 Supp. SCC 350, M. Venugopal v. LIC (1994) 2 SCC 323 and Harish Tandon v. ADM, Allahabad (1995) 1 SCC 537 and eventually, it was held that when a statute creates a legal fiction saying that something shall be deemed to have been done which in fact and truth has not been done, the Court has to examine and ascertain as to for what purpose and between which persons such a statutory fiction is to be resorted to and thereafter, the courts have to give full effect to such a statutory fiction an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 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. To elaborate, it cannot be a decree as if this Court has adjudicated the matter and decree is passed. The Parliament has intended that the same shall be executed or abided as if it is a decree of this Court. It is to be borne in mind that a provision should not be interpreted to give a different colour which has a technical design rather than serving the object of the legislation. The exposition of the principles of law relating to ficti....