Cauvery Water Dispute: Supreme Court Directs Implementation of Water Sharing Scheme

The case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. P.K. Sinha & Anr. revolves around the long-standing inter-state dispute over the sharing of the Cauvery River water. The Supreme Court examined the contempt petition filed by Tamil Nadu against the Union Government for non-compliance with its earlier ruling directing the formulation of a scheme for water sharing.

The Supreme Court had previously ruled in February 2018 that the Central Government must frame a scheme under Section 6A of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 to ensure proper allocation of water as per the tribunal’s award. The delay in implementation led Tamil Nadu to initiate contempt proceedings against the Union Government. In this case, the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to implement the Cauvery Water Management Scheme without further delay.

Background of the Case

The dispute over the Cauvery River water has been ongoing for decades, involving Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and the Union Territory of Puducherry. The following key events led to the Supreme Court’s intervention:

• In 1990, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) was constituted under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act.
• In 2007, the Tribunal issued its final award allocating specific quantities of water to each state.
• The Supreme Court modified the Tribunal’s award in February 2018 and directed the Centre to frame a scheme for implementing water sharing.
• Despite the ruling, the Central Government failed to implement the scheme within the given timeframe, prompting Tamil Nadu to file a contempt petition.

Key Legal Issues Considered

The Supreme Court examined the following legal questions:

• Whether the Union Government had failed to comply with the Court’s ruling.
• Whether the framing of the Cauvery Water Management Scheme could be delayed further.
• Whether the Supreme Court could issue specific directions for the scheme’s implementation.
• The extent of powers of the Cauvery Water Management Board and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s (State of Tamil Nadu) Arguments

The State of Tamil Nadu contended:

• The Central Government had failed to comply with the Court’s order to implement the scheme within six weeks.
• The continued delay was causing hardship to Tamil Nadu’s farmers, who rely on the Cauvery water for irrigation.
• The Centre was deliberately stalling the implementation to favor Karnataka.
• The Cauvery Management Board and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee must be given full powers to enforce the water-sharing mechanism.

Respondent’s (Union of India) Arguments

The Union Government countered:

• It had initiated consultations with the concerned states to ensure the smooth implementation of the scheme.
• The delay was due to differing views among the states, making consensus difficult.
• The Centre had already prepared a draft scheme and was seeking the Court’s clarification on certain aspects.
• The framing of the scheme was a complex exercise that required careful deliberation.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tamil Nadu and directed the Central Government to implement the Cauvery Water Management Scheme without any further delay.

“The draft scheme has been formulated singularly for the purpose of ensuring smooth, effective, and efficient implementation of the Award of the Tribunal as modified by this Court. The draft scheme ought to be taken forward to its logical end in accordance with law with utmost dispatch.”

The Court emphasized:

• The implementation of the scheme should not be delayed any further.
• The Cauvery Water Management Board and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee should be given the authority to enforce water-sharing.
• The scheme must be notified in the official gazette and given effect before the onset of the monsoon.
• The Union Government should act in accordance with the Tribunal’s award and the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Central Government must comply with judicial orders in inter-state water disputes.
• The ruling ensures that the Cauvery Water Management Scheme is implemented effectively and without political interference.
• The judgment strengthens the role of regulatory bodies in overseeing water-sharing agreements.
• The decision provides relief to Tamil Nadu’s farmers, ensuring timely availability of water for irrigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case is a significant step towards resolving the long-standing Cauvery water dispute. By directing the immediate implementation of the Cauvery Water Management Scheme, the Court has reinforced the importance of compliance with judicial directives and equitable water-sharing among states.

The decision upholds the rule of law in inter-state water disputes and ensures that all affected states receive their fair share of water, thereby safeguarding the rights of millions of farmers and communities dependent on the Cauvery River.

Petitioner Name: State of Tamil Nadu.
Respondent Name: P.K. Sinha & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 18-05-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Tamil Nadu vs P.K. Sinha & Anr. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-05-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category