Inter-State River Water Dispute: Andhra Pradesh vs. Karnataka

The dispute over inter-state river waters has been a longstanding issue in India, often leading to conflicts between states over water rights and usage. One such case arose between the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Karnataka, which was brought before the Supreme Court of India in 2003. The dispute concerned the construction of irrigation projects and water impoundment structures by Karnataka in the Pennar Basin, which Andhra Pradesh claimed would affect its water availability. The case was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court in 2022, allowing Andhra Pradesh to seek remedies through other legal avenues.

Background of the Case

The State of Andhra Pradesh filed the Original Suit No. 5 of 2003 against the State of Karnataka and the Government of India, seeking the following reliefs:

An injunction to restrain Karnataka from constructing the Paragodu Project on the Chitravathi river in the Pennar Basin until the resolution of the water dispute under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
A similar injunction to prevent Karnataka from constructing or impounding water in various other irrigation projects, including anicuts and tanks across the Pennar River and its tributaries.
A directive to the Government of India to take action under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, to resolve the dispute.
Other appropriate reliefs deemed fit by the Court.

Interim Relief Sought

Pending the final resolution of the case, Andhra Pradesh sought an ad-interim injunction to prevent Karnataka from undertaking any construction, execution, or implementation of water-related projects that could impact the availability of water for Andhra Pradesh.

Arguments of the Petitioner (State of Andhra Pradesh)

The State of Andhra Pradesh contended that:

Karnataka was unilaterally constructing projects that would divert and impound waters of the Pennar River, impacting Andhra Pradesh’s share of water.
Under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, such disputes should be resolved through a tribunal before any state can undertake projects affecting another state’s water availability.
The projects in Karnataka would cause irreversible harm to the agriculture and drinking water needs of Andhra Pradesh’s population.
An immediate injunction was necessary to prevent further damage before the dispute was legally resolved.

Arguments of the Respondents (State of Karnataka & Government of India)

The State of Karnataka and the Government of India opposed Andhra Pradesh’s claims, arguing that:

Karnataka had the right to utilize its share of river waters for irrigation and developmental activities.
The projects in question were essential for meeting Karnataka’s water needs and had been undertaken within its legal rights.
Andhra Pradesh had failed to formally request the constitution of an Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal under the Act of 1956.
The projects had been in progress for years, and stopping them would cause economic and developmental setbacks.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, considered the case and made the following key observations:

1. Time Lapse and Changed Circumstances

The Court noted that 19 years had passed since the suit was filed, and during this time, significant developments had taken place. Various water projects had been completed, and Karnataka had augmented its water resources for multiple purposes, including drinking water and irrigation.

2. Lack of Request for a Tribunal

The Court observed that Andhra Pradesh had not made a formal request for the constitution of an Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal under the Act of 1956, which was the appropriate legal mechanism for resolving such disputes.

3. Need for a Fresh Legal Remedy

Considering the passage of time and the developments that had taken place, the Court ruled that Andhra Pradesh should seek appropriate remedies afresh through legally established procedures. The Court stated:

“At this juncture, the matter therefore requires to be considered in the light of the present-day situation.”

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the case, granting Andhra Pradesh the liberty to approach the Central Government for the constitution of a tribunal or seek any other legal remedy.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of utilizing proper legal frameworks for resolving inter-state water disputes. While Andhra Pradesh raised legitimate concerns, the failure to formally invoke the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, over nearly two decades led the Court to dismiss the case. However, the ruling allows Andhra Pradesh to seek legal remedies through appropriate channels, ensuring that its water rights are protected.

This case highlights the complexities of inter-state water sharing and the need for timely legal action. As water resources become increasingly scarce, states must ensure they follow due legal procedures to safeguard their interests while promoting cooperative federalism in water management.

Petitioner Name: State of Andhra Pradesh.
Respondent Name: State of Karnataka & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice J.B. Pardiwala.
Place Of Incident: Pennar Basin, Andhra Pradesh & Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 28-09-2022.

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-andhra-prad-vs-state-of-karnataka-&-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-28-09-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by S Ravindra Bhat
See all petitions in Judgment by J.B. Pardiwala
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Declared Infructuous
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

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