Tamilnadu opposed Centre’s stand on Cauvery board tribunal

Tamil Nadu has opposed the Centre’s view on the role of tribunal in inter-state river water disputes.

What has the Tamil Nadu said? 

According to the Tamil Nadu state government, the position taken by the Centre that the Supreme Court has no power to judicially review the Cauvery tribunal’s 2007 award is tantamount to giving the tribunal “absolute, uncontrolled, uncanalised and unguided judicial power which negates the rule of law.”

Background:

The Centre had opposed the Supreme Court hearing appeals filed by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala against the tribunal decision. According to the Centre, the Supreme Court was barred under Article 262 (3) and provisions of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 from entertaining appeals under Article 136 against the Cauvery tribunal’s award.

Read:  Cauvery river dispute

What the law says?

Article 262, dealing with the adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys, says:

• Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-state river or river valley.
• Notwithstanding anything in this constitution, parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1).

Pursuant to the power conferred by the Constitution (article 262), Parliament has enacted the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. Key features include:

• A State Government which has a water dispute with another State Government may request the Central Government to refer the dispute to a tribunal for adjudication.
• The Central Government, if it is of opinion that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, shall refer the dispute to a Tribunal.
• The Tribunal’s composition is laid down in the Act. It consists of a Chairman and two other members, nominated by the Chief Justice of India from among persons who, at the time of such nomination, are Judges of the Supreme Court.
• The Tribunal can appoint assessors to advise it in the proceedings before it.
• On the reference being made by the Central Government, the Tribunal investigates the matter and makes its report, embodying its decision. The decision is to be published and is to be final and binding on the parties.
• Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts in respect of the dispute referred to the Tribunal is barred.
• The Central Government may frame a scheme, providing for all matters necessary to give effect to the decision of the Tribunal. The scheme may, inter alia, provide for establishing an authority for implementing (section 6A).

Article 136: 

Special Leave Petitions are heard by the Supreme Court under Article 136(1) of the constitution. This provision enables the Supreme Court to grant “special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India”.