NEW DELHI: The Union government has pushed the Supreme Court for a “purposive” interpretation of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, to allow retired Supreme Court judges and Supreme Court judges heading existing water tribunals to adjudicate new inter-state river disputes, arguing that such a reading would avoid the need to constitute new tribunals each time and ensure faster resolution of disputes.
In an application filed before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the Center urged the court to interpret Section 4(2) of the Act to hold that the statutory requirement of nomination of the Chairman and members of the Water Disputes Tribunal by the Chief Justice of India “from among the persons who at the time of such nomination are judges of the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court” is merely a substantive qualification and not a continuing requirement.
This petition, filed by Attorney General R Venkataramani on Friday, seeks to amend the Supreme Court’s February 2 ruling ordering the Center to set up a tribunal to adjudicate the long-pending Penniyar river water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Instead of establishing a new court, the federation wants permission to refer the dispute to the already established Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal, whose members have since retired from the constitutional courts but still hold office under the law.
According to the Centre, such an interpretation would ensure “optimal use of the Union’s judicial and administrative resources” while providing a “quick and economical way to comply” with the Supreme Court’s directives.
While appearing on behalf of the federation, Venkataramani asserted that the government “seeks a meaningful interpretation of Section 4(2) of the Act to allow the existing court, whose members met the qualifications on their nomination, to be entrusted with adjudicating the Beniyar dispute.”
However, the panel wondered why Parliament had not amended the legal framework if such flexibility was intended. “You should have amended this clause…it would have been resolved by now,” the bench observed, referring to the mandatory requirement under Article 4 that the Center constitute a tribunal once negotiations fail.
The Public Prosecutor informed the court that the Mahadi Water Disputes Court had submitted its report and no proceedings had been conducted before it since June 2020.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, who represented Karnataka along with advocate Nishanth Patil, opposed any immediate consideration of the petition, telling the Supreme Court that the issue was “really serious” and required a detailed response. The Tamil Nadu counsel also sought time to respond.
In granting the application, the court gave both states two weeks to file their responses and directed that the matter be listed thereafter.
In accordance with the Federation’s request, the Court submitted its report with its ruling in August 2018, which was published in February 2020. The proceedings regarding the references were postponed indefinitely in June 2020 at the request of the countries concerned, although the Court still exists and its mandate has currently been extended until 15 August 2027.
The Center emphasized that Article 4 (2) explicitly requires judges to possess the qualifications prescribed only “at the time of such nomination.” “Fulfillment of this qualification is therefore a minimum and not a continuing requirement,” the request said, adding that members of the sitting court, having fulfilled the eligibility requirement upon their nomination, “do not cease to be competent to perform the duties of the office upon leaving judicial office,” especially since the statutory scheme itself contemplates the work of the courts over a period of several years.
The application also argued that the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act is a remedial legislation enacted to give effect to Article 262 of the Constitution and should therefore receive a purposive interpretation that furthers the objective of speedy adjudication of inter-State river disputes rather than frustrates it. It also relied on the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 to frame the relief in the interests of full justice.
On February 2, the Supreme Court ruled that there was “no impediment” to the Union government setting up a Water Disputes Tribunal under the 1956 Act after negotiations between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka failed to resolve the Penyar dispute. After disposing of the original case filed by Tamil Nadu in 2018 under Article 131 of the Constitution, the court ordered that the state’s complaint be placed before the tribunal to be constituted by the Centre.
The Pennyar River, also known as the South Pennyar, originates in the state of Karnataka and flows through the state of Tamil Nadu before emptying into the Bay of Bengal. Tamil Nadu has claimed for years that Karnataka’s construction of check dams, reservoirs and upstream diversion structures has reduced downstream flows, negatively impacting irrigation and drinking water supplies in many northern districts.
Operations control mission
