Constitution of India — Article 131 — Original jurisdiction — Inter-State river water dispute — Pennaiyar River — Suit between riparian States maintainable.
Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 — Sections 3 & 4 — Failure of negotiation process — Mandatory duty of Central Government to constitute Tribunal — ‘Shall’ in Section 4 imposes obligation.
Negotiation at ministerial level unsuccessful — Central Government required to issue notification constituting Water Disputes Tribunal within fixed timeline.
Court declines to adjudicate merits — Dispute referred for statutory adjudication — All issues left open before Tribunal.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Parties
-
Plaintiff: Tamil Nadu
-
Defendant No. 1: Karnataka
-
Defendant No. 2: Union of India
River in Dispute
Pennaiyar River — an inter-State river flowing through Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry.
PLAINTIFF’S GRIEVANCE
Tamil Nadu invoked Article 131 seeking:
-
Declaration that Karnataka’s construction of check dams/diversion structures was illegal.
-
Permanent injunction restraining further construction.
-
Direction to ensure natural flows into Tamil Nadu.
-
Mandatory direction to Union of India to act on request for intervention.
Tamil Nadu relied upon the 1892 Agreement between the erstwhile Madras and Mysore States, asserting that prior consent of the lower riparian State was mandatory before undertaking upstream works.
PROCEDURAL DEVELOPMENTS
-
Suit filed in 2018.
-
Interim relief rejected (2019) as 75% construction completed.
-
Liberty granted to invoke Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
-
Tamil Nadu filed complaint under Section 3 of the Act.
-
Negotiation process initiated by Central Government.
-
Multiple meetings held at official and ministerial levels.
-
No consensus reached.
-
Tamil Nadu reiterated demand for Tribunal.
-
Negotiation process postponed indefinitely (Affidavit dated 07.10.2025).
CORE LEGAL QUESTION
When negotiation under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act fails, is the Central Government bound to constitute a Tribunal under Section 4?
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
Under:
Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956
-
Section 3: State may request Central Government to refer dispute.
-
Section 4: If Central Government forms opinion that dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, it shall constitute a Tribunal.
SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS
The Court relied on:
T.N. Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappa Sangam v. Union of India
Held therein:
-
“May” in draft replaced with “shall” in enacted Section 4.
-
Constitution of Tribunal becomes mandatory once negotiation fails.
The Court observed:
-
Negotiations attempted at multiple levels.
-
No amicable resolution.
-
Tamil Nadu unequivocally demanded Tribunal adjudication.
-
Ministerial process indefinitely deferred.
Therefore:
A stage had been reached where the Central Government must be held to have formed the opinion that negotiation has failed.
HOLDING
The Court directed:
-
Union of India to issue notification in Official Gazette.
-
Constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal.
-
Complete this within one month.
The suit was disposed of with all issues left open before the Tribunal.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Where statutorily mandated negotiations under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act fail to produce consensus between riparian States, the Central Government is under a mandatory obligation under Section 4 to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal. The word “shall” admits of no discretion once the statutory conditions are satisfied.
SIGNIFICANCE
This judgment reinforces:
-
Federal dispute resolution mechanism under Article 131.
-
Mandatory nature of Section 4 of the 1956 Act.
-
Limited judicial role once statutory forum is triggered.
-
Deference to specialized adjudicatory mechanism.
-
Strengthening of cooperative federalism within constitutional structure.
The Court consciously refrained from adjudicating merits of water allocation, leaving all substantive questions to the Tribunal.
