Business Standard

SC reserves order on maintainability of appeals against Cauvery award

IANS  |  New Delhi 

The Supreme on Wednesday reserved its order on the maintainability of appeals against an inter-state river water tribunal award and observed that Article 262 of the Constitution doesn't say that such award is so sacrosanct that the apex can't look into it.

"Prima facie, we feel that Article 262 does not say that the (river water) tribunal award is so sacrosanct that the Supreme can't look into it," said a bench of Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.

The said this as Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala contested the Centre's position that their appeals challenging the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award were not maintainable as under Article 262, read with Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, the top was barred from hearing the appeals.

The reserved its order and gave all the parties time till Monday to file their written submissions.

Section 11 bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme or any other in water disputes referred to the Water Disputes Tribunal.

Article 262 provides for the adjudication of disputes relating to use, distribution and control of waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys.

The Centre on Wednesday reiterated its stand that Article 262 and Section 11 eclipsed the Supreme jurisdiction to examine the tribunal award on the river water disputes.

Assailing the Centre's position, senior counsel Fali S. Nariman -- appearing for Karnataka -- said Clause (2) of the Article 136 explicitly says that the Supreme will not interfere with any "judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces".

He said that besides this, the jurisdiction of the top has not been ousted in any other area.

Nariman said that a statutory provision -- the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 -- can't take away the constitutional powers of judicial review of the top under Article 136.

Article 136 spells out the power of judicial review of the apex court.

Nariman said Article 136 pertains to Supreme Court's residuary powers which is outside the purview of ordinary laws and same can be taken recourse to for meeting the ends of justice.

The senior counsel said under Section 6(2) of the 1956 Act, the tribunal award has the same force as a Supreme decree but it does not become the order of the Supreme itself.

He drew distinction between the tribunal order having the same force as the apex court's decree and the Supreme Court's order itself.

Appearing for Tamil Nadu, senior counsel Shekhar Naphade said that giving the tribunal award the status equivalent to a Supreme decree under Section 6 (2) of the 1956 Act does not take away its (top court's) jurisdiction to look into the award.

Naphade said what the apex will examine is not the dispute over river water sharing but the tribunal award.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi contested this, saying that the by examining the award was in fact examining the contentions raised by rival states on the sharing of Cauvery waters.

"Can it be said that we are disputing the award but are not disputing water-sharing?" Rohatgi asked, wondering on the rationale of the argument that it was the award that was under challenge and not the dispute over the Cauvery river waters.

--IANS

pk/tsb/dg

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

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

SC reserves order on maintainability of appeals against Cauvery award

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the maintainability of appeals against an inter-state river water tribunal award and observed that Article 262 of the Constitution doesn't say that such award is so sacrosanct that the apex court can't look into it.

The Supreme on Wednesday reserved its order on the maintainability of appeals against an inter-state river water tribunal award and observed that Article 262 of the Constitution doesn't say that such award is so sacrosanct that the apex can't look into it.

"Prima facie, we feel that Article 262 does not say that the (river water) tribunal award is so sacrosanct that the Supreme can't look into it," said a bench of Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.

The said this as Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala contested the Centre's position that their appeals challenging the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award were not maintainable as under Article 262, read with Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, the top was barred from hearing the appeals.

The reserved its order and gave all the parties time till Monday to file their written submissions.

Section 11 bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme or any other in water disputes referred to the Water Disputes Tribunal.

Article 262 provides for the adjudication of disputes relating to use, distribution and control of waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys.

The Centre on Wednesday reiterated its stand that Article 262 and Section 11 eclipsed the Supreme jurisdiction to examine the tribunal award on the river water disputes.

Assailing the Centre's position, senior counsel Fali S. Nariman -- appearing for Karnataka -- said Clause (2) of the Article 136 explicitly says that the Supreme will not interfere with any "judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces".

He said that besides this, the jurisdiction of the top has not been ousted in any other area.

Nariman said that a statutory provision -- the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 -- can't take away the constitutional powers of judicial review of the top under Article 136.

Article 136 spells out the power of judicial review of the apex court.

Nariman said Article 136 pertains to Supreme Court's residuary powers which is outside the purview of ordinary laws and same can be taken recourse to for meeting the ends of justice.

The senior counsel said under Section 6(2) of the 1956 Act, the tribunal award has the same force as a Supreme decree but it does not become the order of the Supreme itself.

He drew distinction between the tribunal order having the same force as the apex court's decree and the Supreme Court's order itself.

Appearing for Tamil Nadu, senior counsel Shekhar Naphade said that giving the tribunal award the status equivalent to a Supreme decree under Section 6 (2) of the 1956 Act does not take away its (top court's) jurisdiction to look into the award.

Naphade said what the apex will examine is not the dispute over river water sharing but the tribunal award.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi contested this, saying that the by examining the award was in fact examining the contentions raised by rival states on the sharing of Cauvery waters.

"Can it be said that we are disputing the award but are not disputing water-sharing?" Rohatgi asked, wondering on the rationale of the argument that it was the award that was under challenge and not the dispute over the Cauvery river waters.

--IANS

pk/tsb/dg

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

image
Business Standard
177 22

SC reserves order on maintainability of appeals against Cauvery award

The Supreme on Wednesday reserved its order on the maintainability of appeals against an inter-state river water tribunal award and observed that Article 262 of the Constitution doesn't say that such award is so sacrosanct that the apex can't look into it.

"Prima facie, we feel that Article 262 does not say that the (river water) tribunal award is so sacrosanct that the Supreme can't look into it," said a bench of Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.

The said this as Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala contested the Centre's position that their appeals challenging the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award were not maintainable as under Article 262, read with Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, the top was barred from hearing the appeals.

The reserved its order and gave all the parties time till Monday to file their written submissions.

Section 11 bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme or any other in water disputes referred to the Water Disputes Tribunal.

Article 262 provides for the adjudication of disputes relating to use, distribution and control of waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys.

The Centre on Wednesday reiterated its stand that Article 262 and Section 11 eclipsed the Supreme jurisdiction to examine the tribunal award on the river water disputes.

Assailing the Centre's position, senior counsel Fali S. Nariman -- appearing for Karnataka -- said Clause (2) of the Article 136 explicitly says that the Supreme will not interfere with any "judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces".

He said that besides this, the jurisdiction of the top has not been ousted in any other area.

Nariman said that a statutory provision -- the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 -- can't take away the constitutional powers of judicial review of the top under Article 136.

Article 136 spells out the power of judicial review of the apex court.

Nariman said Article 136 pertains to Supreme Court's residuary powers which is outside the purview of ordinary laws and same can be taken recourse to for meeting the ends of justice.

The senior counsel said under Section 6(2) of the 1956 Act, the tribunal award has the same force as a Supreme decree but it does not become the order of the Supreme itself.

He drew distinction between the tribunal order having the same force as the apex court's decree and the Supreme Court's order itself.

Appearing for Tamil Nadu, senior counsel Shekhar Naphade said that giving the tribunal award the status equivalent to a Supreme decree under Section 6 (2) of the 1956 Act does not take away its (top court's) jurisdiction to look into the award.

Naphade said what the apex will examine is not the dispute over river water sharing but the tribunal award.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi contested this, saying that the by examining the award was in fact examining the contentions raised by rival states on the sharing of Cauvery waters.

"Can it be said that we are disputing the award but are not disputing water-sharing?" Rohatgi asked, wondering on the rationale of the argument that it was the award that was under challenge and not the dispute over the Cauvery river waters.

--IANS

pk/tsb/dg

(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