Business Standard

SC asks Karnataka to give 2,000 cusecs daily to Tamil Nadu

IANS  |  New Delhi 

The Supreme on Tuesday directed to continue to supply 2,000 cusecs of Cauvery river water daily to till further orders as it commenced hearing on the maintainability of appeals by Karnataka, and to challenge the 2007 Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award.

While continuing with its October 4 order on the water release, a bench of Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar said it would be incumbent upon the governments of both states to maintain peace and harmony.

"People should not become law unto themselves," the bench said.

Directing for the continued supply of 2,000 cusecs, the bench noted Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi's contention that both and were in a "state of dire need" of the water.

Rohatgi said this referring to the report of the Cauvery Supervisory Committee.

The noted senior counsel Shekhar Naphade's stand that was in "dire need of water" as well as of senior counsel Fali Nariman that "too is not in a better state".

Telling the that drinking water reserves in were shrinking, Nariman -- appearing for --- told the that situation in the state was "much worse".

The apex also took note of Cauvery Supervisory Committee report that both the southern states were in distress situation with their farmers at the receiving end amid a large number of suicides in Mandya district of Karnataka.

Telling the bench that appeals by Karnataka, and challenging the 2007 Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal award were not maintainable, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said that Article 262 of the Constitution and the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, have "eclipsed the jurisdiction" of the top to examine the tribunal award.

"Eclipse of the Supreme jurisdiction is complete, and it is not partial. The tribunal award is final and it can't be challenged and has the force of Supreme decree," Rohatgi told the three-judge bench, pointing out that their jurisdiction stands ousted by the Constitution and the statute.

The AG said that Article 262 was an original provision of the Constitution and not the amended one and thus does not attract the rigours of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Apparently an unimpressed bench told Rohatgi that the tribunal award had the same force as Supreme decree but the same was in the realm of its enforceability and it does not substitute the jurisdiction of the apex court.

"It is in the realm of the enforceability of the award. It can't be made unchallengeable or unassailable. It will have the status of the top decree, but it can't be that of the Supreme Court," Justice Misra observed.

"Oversimplification of law is a dangerous phenomenon," Justice Misra said as Rohatgi reiterated the Centre's stand that the three appeals were not maintainable.

"It can't be said that this has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the award. Suppose the Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal award passes a totally perverse award -- as Tamil Nadu, and are contending in the instant case -- then who will decide," the bench asked the Attorney General.

As Rohatgi emphasised that the tribunal award was binding on the states and they cannot appeal against it, the bench observed: "The moment it becomes a water dispute, the is ousted."

"Article 136 of the Constitution gives us the power of judicial review and Article 262 takes it away," Justice Misra observed as Rohatgi told the that it was only in one sphere.

To the court's query as to "how we understand, appreciate and apply Article 262", the Attorney General said these are the issues which require authoritative pronouncement by this court.

Opposing the Centre's stand, senior counsel Fali Nariman said appeals by the three states were maintainable and contended that the legislature cannot say that the order passed by, say a High Court, enjoyed the force of the top decree.

"Can Parliament say that High order will have the force of Supreme order," Nariman said in a poser.

--IANS

pk/tsb/vt

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

SC asks Karnataka to give 2,000 cusecs daily to Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Karnataka to continue to supply 2,000 cusecs of Cauvery river water daily to Tamil Nadu till further orders as it commenced hearing on the maintainability of appeals by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala to challenge the 2007 Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award.

The Supreme on Tuesday directed to continue to supply 2,000 cusecs of Cauvery river water daily to till further orders as it commenced hearing on the maintainability of appeals by Karnataka, and to challenge the 2007 Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award.

While continuing with its October 4 order on the water release, a bench of Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar said it would be incumbent upon the governments of both states to maintain peace and harmony.

"People should not become law unto themselves," the bench said.

Directing for the continued supply of 2,000 cusecs, the bench noted Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi's contention that both and were in a "state of dire need" of the water.

Rohatgi said this referring to the report of the Cauvery Supervisory Committee.

The noted senior counsel Shekhar Naphade's stand that was in "dire need of water" as well as of senior counsel Fali Nariman that "too is not in a better state".

Telling the that drinking water reserves in were shrinking, Nariman -- appearing for --- told the that situation in the state was "much worse".

The apex also took note of Cauvery Supervisory Committee report that both the southern states were in distress situation with their farmers at the receiving end amid a large number of suicides in Mandya district of Karnataka.

Telling the bench that appeals by Karnataka, and challenging the 2007 Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal award were not maintainable, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said that Article 262 of the Constitution and the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, have "eclipsed the jurisdiction" of the top to examine the tribunal award.

"Eclipse of the Supreme jurisdiction is complete, and it is not partial. The tribunal award is final and it can't be challenged and has the force of Supreme decree," Rohatgi told the three-judge bench, pointing out that their jurisdiction stands ousted by the Constitution and the statute.

The AG said that Article 262 was an original provision of the Constitution and not the amended one and thus does not attract the rigours of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Apparently an unimpressed bench told Rohatgi that the tribunal award had the same force as Supreme decree but the same was in the realm of its enforceability and it does not substitute the jurisdiction of the apex court.

"It is in the realm of the enforceability of the award. It can't be made unchallengeable or unassailable. It will have the status of the top decree, but it can't be that of the Supreme Court," Justice Misra observed.

"Oversimplification of law is a dangerous phenomenon," Justice Misra said as Rohatgi reiterated the Centre's stand that the three appeals were not maintainable.

"It can't be said that this has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the award. Suppose the Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal award passes a totally perverse award -- as Tamil Nadu, and are contending in the instant case -- then who will decide," the bench asked the Attorney General.

As Rohatgi emphasised that the tribunal award was binding on the states and they cannot appeal against it, the bench observed: "The moment it becomes a water dispute, the is ousted."

"Article 136 of the Constitution gives us the power of judicial review and Article 262 takes it away," Justice Misra observed as Rohatgi told the that it was only in one sphere.

To the court's query as to "how we understand, appreciate and apply Article 262", the Attorney General said these are the issues which require authoritative pronouncement by this court.

Opposing the Centre's stand, senior counsel Fali Nariman said appeals by the three states were maintainable and contended that the legislature cannot say that the order passed by, say a High Court, enjoyed the force of the top decree.

"Can Parliament say that High order will have the force of Supreme order," Nariman said in a poser.

--IANS

pk/tsb/vt

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

image
Business Standard
177 22

SC asks Karnataka to give 2,000 cusecs daily to Tamil Nadu

The Supreme on Tuesday directed to continue to supply 2,000 cusecs of Cauvery river water daily to till further orders as it commenced hearing on the maintainability of appeals by Karnataka, and to challenge the 2007 Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award.

While continuing with its October 4 order on the water release, a bench of Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar said it would be incumbent upon the governments of both states to maintain peace and harmony.

"People should not become law unto themselves," the bench said.

Directing for the continued supply of 2,000 cusecs, the bench noted Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi's contention that both and were in a "state of dire need" of the water.

Rohatgi said this referring to the report of the Cauvery Supervisory Committee.

The noted senior counsel Shekhar Naphade's stand that was in "dire need of water" as well as of senior counsel Fali Nariman that "too is not in a better state".

Telling the that drinking water reserves in were shrinking, Nariman -- appearing for --- told the that situation in the state was "much worse".

The apex also took note of Cauvery Supervisory Committee report that both the southern states were in distress situation with their farmers at the receiving end amid a large number of suicides in Mandya district of Karnataka.

Telling the bench that appeals by Karnataka, and challenging the 2007 Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal award were not maintainable, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said that Article 262 of the Constitution and the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, have "eclipsed the jurisdiction" of the top to examine the tribunal award.

"Eclipse of the Supreme jurisdiction is complete, and it is not partial. The tribunal award is final and it can't be challenged and has the force of Supreme decree," Rohatgi told the three-judge bench, pointing out that their jurisdiction stands ousted by the Constitution and the statute.

The AG said that Article 262 was an original provision of the Constitution and not the amended one and thus does not attract the rigours of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Apparently an unimpressed bench told Rohatgi that the tribunal award had the same force as Supreme decree but the same was in the realm of its enforceability and it does not substitute the jurisdiction of the apex court.

"It is in the realm of the enforceability of the award. It can't be made unchallengeable or unassailable. It will have the status of the top decree, but it can't be that of the Supreme Court," Justice Misra observed.

"Oversimplification of law is a dangerous phenomenon," Justice Misra said as Rohatgi reiterated the Centre's stand that the three appeals were not maintainable.

"It can't be said that this has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the award. Suppose the Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal award passes a totally perverse award -- as Tamil Nadu, and are contending in the instant case -- then who will decide," the bench asked the Attorney General.

As Rohatgi emphasised that the tribunal award was binding on the states and they cannot appeal against it, the bench observed: "The moment it becomes a water dispute, the is ousted."

"Article 136 of the Constitution gives us the power of judicial review and Article 262 takes it away," Justice Misra observed as Rohatgi told the that it was only in one sphere.

To the court's query as to "how we understand, appreciate and apply Article 262", the Attorney General said these are the issues which require authoritative pronouncement by this court.

Opposing the Centre's stand, senior counsel Fali Nariman said appeals by the three states were maintainable and contended that the legislature cannot say that the order passed by, say a High Court, enjoyed the force of the top decree.

"Can Parliament say that High order will have the force of Supreme order," Nariman said in a poser.

--IANS

pk/tsb/vt

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

image
Business Standard
177 22

Upgrade To Premium Services

Welcome User

Business Standard is happy to inform you of the launch of "Business Standard Premium Services"

As a premium subscriber you get an across device unfettered access to a range of services which include:

  • Access Exclusive content - articles, features & opinion pieces
  • Weekly Industry/Genre specific newsletters - Choose multiple industries/genres
  • Access to 17 plus years of content archives
  • Set Stock price alerts for your portfolio and watch list and get them delivered to your e-mail box
  • End of day news alerts on 5 companies (via email)
  • NEW: Get seamless access to WSJ.com at a great price. No additional sign-up required.
 

Premium Services

In Partnership with

 

Dear Guest,

 

Welcome to the premium services of Business Standard brought to you courtesy FIS.
Kindly visit the Manage my subscription page to discover the benefits of this programme.

Enjoy Reading!
Team Business Standard