New Delhi: The Union government has moved the Supreme Court seeking a “purposive” interpretation of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, to allow retired Supreme Court and high court judges heading existing water tribunals to adjudicate fresh inter-state river disputes, arguing that such a reading would avoid the need to constitute new tribunals each time and ensure quicker resolution of disputes.
Event Context
In an application filed before a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the Centre urged the court to interpret Section 4(2) of the Act to hold that the statutory requirement that the chairman and members of a water disputes tribunal be nominated by the Chief Justice of India “from among persons who at the time of such nomination are Judges of the Supreme Court or of a High Court” is only a threshold qualification and not a continuing condition.
The plea, pressed by Attorney General R Venkataramani on Friday, seeks modification of the Supreme Court’s February 2 judgment directing the Centre to constitute a tribunal to adjudicate the long-pending Pennaiyar river water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Instead of setting up a fresh tribunal, the Union wants permission to assign the dispute to the already constituted Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal, whose members have since retired from the constitutional courts but continue to hold office under the statute.
The Attorney General informed the court that the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal had submitted its report and no proceedings had taken place before it since June 2020.
On February 2, the Supreme Court had held that there was “no impediment” to the Union government constituting a water disputes tribunal under the 1956 Act after negotiations between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka failed to resolve the Pennaiyar dispute. Disposing of Tamil Nadu’s original suit filed in 2018 under Article 131 of the Constitution, the court had directed that the state’s complaint be placed before the tribunal to be constituted by the Centre.
The Pennaiyar, also known as the South Pennar, originates in Karnataka and flows through Tamil Nadu before emptying into the Bay of Bengal. Tamil Nadu has for years alleged that Karnataka’s construction of check dams, reservoirs and diversion structures upstream has reduced downstream flows, adversely affecting irrigation and drinking water supply in several northern districts.
EOM
Team Analysis
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Karnataka along with advocate Nishanth Patil, opposed any immediate consideration of the plea, telling the apex court that the issue was “really serious” and required a detailed response. The counsel for Tamil Nadu also sought time to respond.
Accepting the request, the bench granted both states two weeks to file their replies and directed that the matter be listed thereafter.
source
According to the Centre, such an interpretation would ensure the “optimal utilisation of the judicial and administrative resources of the Union” while providing an “expeditious and economical mode of compliance” with the Supreme Court’s directions.
Appearing for the Union, Venkataramani submitted that the government was “seeking a purposive interpretation of Section 4(2) of the Act so as to permit an existing Tribunal, whose members satisfied the qualification when nominated, to be entrusted with the adjudication of the Pennaiyar dispute.”
The bench, however, questioned why Parliament had not amended the statutory framework if such flexibility was intended. “You should have amended the provision…it would have been resolved by now,” observed the bench, referring to the mandatory requirement under Section 4 that the Centre constitute a tribunal once negotiations fail.
According to the Union’s application, the tribunal submitted its report-cum-award in August 2018, which was published in February 2020. Proceedings on references were adjourned sine die in June 2020 on the request of the concerned states, although the tribunal continues to exist and its tenure presently stands extended until August 15, 2027.
The Centre contended that Section 4(2) expressly requires judges to possess the prescribed qualification only “at the time of such nomination”. “It is thus a qualification to be satisfied at the threshold and not a continuing condition,” stated the application, adding that members of an existing tribunal, having fulfilled the eligibility requirement when nominated, “do not cease to be competent to discharge the functions of the office upon demitting judicial office”, particularly since the statutory scheme itself contemplates tribunals functioning over several years.
The application further argued that the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act is a remedial legislation enacted to give effect to Article 262 of the Constitution and must therefore receive a purposive interpretation that advances, rather than defeats, the objective of speedy adjudication of inter-state river disputes. It also invoked the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 to mould relief in the interests of complete justice.
