Tamil Nadu vs. Karnataka: Supreme Court Rules on Pennaiyar River Water Dispute

The case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Karnataka & Another revolves around an interstate river water dispute concerning the Pennaiyar River. Tamil Nadu filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, challenging Karnataka’s unilateral construction of check dams and diversion structures affecting the flow of the river into Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether Karnataka’s actions violated previous agreements and if Tamil Nadu’s claims warranted immediate relief.

The judgment is significant in setting a precedent on the interpretation of interstate water-sharing agreements, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in water disputes, and the role of the central government in resolving such conflicts.

Background of the Case

The dispute arises over the use, control, and distribution of the waters of the Pennaiyar River, which flows through Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and the Union Territory of Puducherry. The Pennaiyar River is an interstate river, and its use has been regulated under agreements dating back to 1892 and 1933 between the then-Madras Presidency and the princely state of Mysore.

The primary concerns of Tamil Nadu, as stated in its petition, are as follows:

• Karnataka had undertaken five major projects, including check dams, irrigation schemes, and reservoirs, affecting the natural flow of the river.
• These projects were undertaken without prior consent from Tamil Nadu, violating the 1892 Agreement.
• The reduction in water flow would severely impact farmers and residents in Tamil Nadu, particularly in the districts of Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri, Thiruvannamalai, Villupuram, and Cuddalore.
• The central government, despite representations made by Tamil Nadu, had failed to intervene.

Arguments by Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu, in its original suit, made the following key arguments:

• The 1892 Agreement explicitly prohibited Karnataka from unilaterally constructing new irrigation or diversion projects without prior approval.
• Karnataka’s actions violated the principles of interstate water-sharing and created an imbalance, affecting lower riparian rights.
• The projects in question included a 500 Mcft storage reservoir near Yargol village and multiple lift irrigation schemes that redirected water away from Tamil Nadu.
• The livelihoods of farmers dependent on the river were under threat due to the substantial reduction in water flow.
• The central government was obligated to ensure compliance with interstate agreements but had failed to take necessary action.

Arguments by Karnataka

Karnataka, in its defense, countered Tamil Nadu’s claims with the following arguments:

• The 1892 Agreement did not restrict Karnataka from executing drinking water projects, and the contested projects primarily aimed at addressing drinking water shortages in Karnataka.
• The projects had received necessary environmental and governmental clearances, and 75% of the construction work had already been completed.
• Interstate rivers are national assets, and upper riparian states have an equal right to use water for drinking and irrigation purposes.
• Tamil Nadu had not formally requested the central government to constitute a tribunal under the Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
• Since the primary project was for drinking water supply, it did not fall under the scope of irrigation works requiring Tamil Nadu’s consent.

Arguments by the Central Government

The central government, in its response, stated:

• No formal request had been made by Tamil Nadu for the constitution of a tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
• The government had conducted inspections and meetings on the issue but had not taken further steps due to a lack of specific requests from either state.
• Intervention by the central government required procedural adherence under the 1956 Act.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed Tamil Nadu’s application for an immediate injunction against Karnataka’s projects. However, it allowed Tamil Nadu to file a formal request for the constitution of an Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal under the 1956 Act.

Key Observations by the Court

1. Jurisdiction Under Article 131

• The Court ruled that disputes over interstate river waters should primarily be addressed through the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
• The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in interstate disputes but generally prefers to direct such matters to water tribunals.

2. No Immediate Relief to Tamil Nadu

• The Court noted that Karnataka had undertaken the projects with necessary permissions and that 75% of the construction work was already completed.
• Granting an interim injunction at this stage would cause disproportionate harm to Karnataka.

3. Direction to Tamil Nadu to Follow Due Process

• The Court allowed Tamil Nadu to submit a formal request to the central government under Section 3 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, for the constitution of a water tribunal.
• If Tamil Nadu filed the request, the central government was directed to act on it within a specified timeframe.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling has significant implications for interstate water-sharing disputes:

• Emphasizes Water Dispute Tribunals Over Direct Litigation: The judgment reaffirms that states should seek relief through the mechanisms established under the 1956 Act rather than directly approaching the Supreme Court.
• Sets a Precedent for Future Interstate Water Disputes: Other states involved in similar disputes may now follow the procedural steps outlined in this judgment.
• Balances Interests of Upper and Lower Riparian States: The Court acknowledged Karnataka’s need for drinking water while recognizing Tamil Nadu’s concerns over reduced water flow.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Tamil Nadu vs. Karnataka highlights the importance of procedural adherence in resolving interstate water disputes. While Tamil Nadu’s concerns were acknowledged, the Court emphasized the need to follow legal mechanisms under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. This ruling ensures that future disputes over river water sharing are addressed through legally established frameworks, preventing unilateral actions by states.

Petitioner Name: State of Tamil Nadu.
Respondent Name: State of Karnataka and Another.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Vineet Saran.
Place Of Incident: Pennaiyar River Basin, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 14-11-2019.

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 State of Karnataka a Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 14-11-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Vineet Saran
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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