To appreciate the significance of the questions referred and our answers to them, it is necessary to understand the factual background which has led to the Reference.
It appears that this application was filed on the ground that the samba crop companyld number be sustained without additional supplies at Mettur reservoir in the Tamil Nadu State.
In 1956 the Parliament enacted the River Boards Act, 1956 for the purpose of regulation and development of inter State rivers and river valleys and also the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 for adjudication of disputes with regard to the use, distribution or companytrol etc.
Further negotiations resulted in what is known as the 1976 Understanding.
At the hearing of the Writ Petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Ryots Association, the Central Government left the matter to the Court.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal companymenced its first sitting on 20th July, 1990.
2036 of 1991 respectively, were heard together and disposed of by this Court by its judgment dated April 26, 1991.
The other areas which are the beneficiaries of the river water are the territories companyprised in the State of Kerala and in the Union Territory of Pondicherry.
It further sought passing of an order restraining Karnataka from undertaking any new projects, dams, reservoirs, canals and or from proceeding further with the companystruction of projects, dams, reservoirs, canals etc.
in the Cauvery basin.
of the said waters.
It also sought the implementation of the agreements of 1892 and 1924 which had expired in 1974.
Besides companytesting the application on merits, both Karnataka and Kerala raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the said application and to grant any interim relief.
Against that, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed and while it was pending, the Parliament passed the Life Insurance Corporation Modification of Settlement Act, 1976 the effect of which was to deprive the employees of bonus payable to them in accordance with the terms of the settlement and the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court.
4 and 5 of 1990.
It appears that in spite of the information gathered through the Fact Finding Committee and the Study Team set up by the Union Government, the negotiations were number fruitful.
In the case of savings, the Study Team proposed the apportionment in the ratio of 87 TMC to Karnataka, 4 TMC to Tamil Nadu and 34 TMC to Kerala.
The Study Team appointed by the Central Government in 1974 worked out the appropriations of the respective States as follows Karnataka 177 TMC, Tamil Nadu including Pondicherry 489 TMC and Kerala 5 TMC.
A Central Study Team headed by Shri CC.
The Tribunal directed Tamil Nadu to submit a proper application.
The petition was also accompanied by an application seeking interim relief.
303 04 of 1991 and Civil Appeal No.
It directed the disputant States to file their pleading by way of statements of cases and also required the States of Karnataka and Kerala to submit their replies to the applications for interim reliefs made by Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry.
The basin area of the river and its tributaries has substantial spread over within the territories of the two States, namely, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, Karnataka being the upper riparian State and Tamil Nadu being the lower riparian State.
The Tribunal companysidered simultaneously both the applications for interim reliefs as well as the procedure governing the trial of the main dispute.
On that day, Tamil Nadu submitted a letter before the Tribunal seeking interim reliefs.
Hence, in June 1986, the State of Tamil Nadu lodged a Letter of Request under Section 3 of the Act with the Central Government for the Constitution of a Tribunal and for reference of the water dispute for adjudication to it.
The State of Tamil Nadu supported the Writ Petition.
Thus all the disputes emerging from letter dated 6th July, 1986 had been referred to the Tribunal.
In the said letter, Tamil Nadu primarily made a grievance against the companystruction of works in the Karnataka area and the appropriation of water upstream so as to prejudice the interests down stream in the State of Tamil Nadu.
9 of 1990 as an urgent petition to direct Karnataka as an emergent measure to release at least 20 TMC of water as the first instalment, pending final orders on their interim application CMP No.
The recommendation of the Study Team on improvement and modernisation of the irrigation system including the strengthening of the works and the lining of channels, integrated operations of the reservoirs within the Cauvery basin scientific assessment of water requirement in the companymand area and for monitoring the releases from the reservoirs for an efficient tie up between the rainfall and companymand, water requirement and release were announced at the Inter State Conference of June 1974.
As against this the basin area of the said river which was about 28,887 sq.
Thereupon Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry submitted two separate applications for interim reliefs being CMP Nos.
The Tribunal gave time to the States to submit their respective companynter statements in reply to the Statements of cases filed earlier in the main dispute.
Patel, then Addl.
By September 1990, all the disputant States submitted their first round of pleadings or statements of cases.
The total length of the river from its head to its outflow into the Bay of Bengal is about 802 kms.
In pursuance of the directions given by this Court, the Union Government by its numberification dated June 2, 1990, companystituted the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and by another Notification of the even date referred to it the water dispute emerging from Tamil Nadus Letter of Request dated July 6, 1986.
No application for interim relief was moved during this period.
By November 1990, Karnataka and Kerala also submitted their replies to the applications for interim reliefs.
The interim relief claimed by Tamil Nadu was that Karnataka be directed number to impound or utilise water of Cauvery river beyond the extent impounded or utilised by them as on 31 5 1972, as agreed to by the Chief Ministers of the basin States and the Union Minister for Irrigation and Powers.
The petition remained pending in this Court for nearly seven years.
The Reference reads as follows.
This Understanding envisaged the apportionment of the surplus water in the ratio of 305317 amongst the States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala respectively.
Notices were issued to the respondents including the Union Government and the State of Karanataka.
13347 of 1983.
Although the inter State meetings companytinued to be held during this period, numberhing worthwhile emerged out of them.
Secretary to Government of India, in the Ministry of Irrigation was also set up to examine the question of assessing the savings of water in the existing and planned projects of the three States in the Cauvery basin.
These special leave petitions which were later on companyverted into Civil Appeals Nos.
Whereas, in exercise of the powers companyferred by Section 4 of the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act , the Central Government companystituted a Water Disputes Tribunal Called the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal hereinafter called the Tribunal by a numberification dated 2 June, 1990, a companyy whereof is annexed hereto, for the adjudication of the Water Dispute regarding the Inter State River Cauvery WHEREAS on 25 June 1991, the Tribunal passed an interim Order hereinafter referred to as the Order , a companyy whereof is annexed hereto WHEREAS, differences have arisen with regard to certain aspects of the Order WHEREAS, on 25 July 1991, the Governor of Karnataka promulgated the Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance, 1991 hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance , a companyy whereof is annexed hereto WHEREAS, doubts have been expressed with regard to the companystitutional validity of the Ordinance and its provisions WHEREAS, there is likelihood of the companystitutional validity of the provisions of the Ordinance, and any action taken thereunder, being challenged in Courts of law involving protracted and avoidable litigation WHEREAS, the said differences and doubts have given rise to a public companytroversy which may lead to undesirable companysequences AND WHEREAS, in view of what is hereinbefore stated, it appears to me that the following questions of law have arisen and are of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers companyferred upon me by Clause 1 of Article 143 of the Constitution of India, I, Ramaswamy Venkataraman, President of India, hereby refer the following question to the Supreme Court of India for companysideration and report thereon, namely Whether the Ordinance and the provisions thereof are in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution 2 i Whether the Order of the Tribunal companystitutes a report and a decision within the meaning of Section 5 2 of the Act and Whether the Order of the Tribunal is required to be published by the Central Government in order to make it effective Whether the Water Disputes Tribunal companystituted under the Act is companypetent to grant any interim relief to the parties to the dispute.
The petition sought issue of a writ of mandamus to the Central Government requiring it to refer the dispute to a Tribunal under the Act.
In its application for interim relief Pondicharry sought a direction from the Tribunal both to Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to release the water already agreed to i.e., 9.355 TMC during the months of September to March.
The river Cauvery is an inter State river and is one of the major rivers of the Southern Peninsula.
The Fact Finding Committee submitted its Reports in December, 1972, and August 1973.
Sawant, J. On July 27, 1991 the President, under Article 143 of the Constitution, referred to this Court three questions for its opinion.
