Inter-State Water Dispute
Article 262 of the Constitution of India with respect to inter-State water disputes, provides that "Provisions for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint in relation to the use, distribution or control of any inter-State river or river Doon or the water there in by Parliament". can do.
"The next part of the same article says,"Parliament may by law provide that the Supreme Court or any other court shall not exercise its jurisdiction in respect of this dispute."
Exercising this right, the Parliament enacted the'Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956'. A provision has been made in this act that the central government can constitute a tribunal for the distribution of river water and its decision will be equal to that of the Supreme Court and binding on the states. Despite this, the states appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the tribunal regarding the Cauvery water dispute, which was also accepted. Here the question is important that under which constitutional provision did this happen? Another interesting
There is another interesting issue related to the Cauvery water dispute which is related to Article 363.
The basic meaning of Article 363(1)is that the Supreme Court will not have the right to adjudicate in relation to the treaty or agreement between the government and the princely states before the commencement of the Constitution.Yes, the President can be consulted in this regard under Article-143. The issue of Cauvery is important because in this context many agreements were signed between the princely states of Madras and Mysore even before independence. So the question was whether the SupremeCourt has the right to hear it?
In response to the first question whether the Supreme Court has the right to hear against the decision of the Tribunal? The Supreme Court observed that although the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 barred the Supreme Court from hearing, the origin of which is the 'language'of Article 262, it is not 'absolute'. Article 136.
It clearly provides that 'the Supreme Court may grant special leave for appeal against the decision of any tribunal.' On this basis,the Supreme Court accepted the petition and pronounced its decision. Also, with regard to Article 363, the Supreme Court said that the agreement between Mysore and Madras in1892 and 1924 was not a 'political arrangement' but was taken keeping in mind the 'publicinterest'. The decision was Therefore, it does not bar the Supreme Court from adjudicating.That is, the Supreme Court refused to accept that in this case on the basis of the agreement of 1892 and 1924, the court does not have the right to review under Article 363. The 'Principle of Paramountcy' does not apply to these agreements. Thus the SupremeCourt delivered its judgment on the Cauvery water dispute.
