TAMIL NADU CAUVERY NEERPPASANAVILAIPORULGAL VIVASAYIGAL NAL V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS INSC 193; AIR 1990 SC 1316; 1990 SCR 83; 1990 SCC 440; 1990 JT 397; 1990 SCALE 866

Name of Case: Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu Sangam v. Union of India and Others (1990) Facts: The petitioner, an association representing Tamil Nadu farmers dependent on Cauvery River irrigation, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. They sought a directive compelling the Union of India to refer the ongoing Cauvery water dispute to a tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, of 1956. Additionally, they requested an injunction preventing the State of Karnataka from constructing dams that would impede water flow to Tamil Nadu, alleging violations of the 1924 Agreement governing water sharing between the states. Issues: Whether the Union of India should be directed to constitute a tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, to adjudicate the Cauvery water dispute. Should the State of Karnataka be restrained from constructing dams that could potentially violate the 1924 Agreement and affect water flow to Tamil Nadu? Holdings: The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to constitute a tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, to adjudicate the Cauvery water dispute. No, the Court did not grant an injunction against the State of Karnataka but emphasized the need for all parties to maintain the status quo until the tribunal rendered its decision. Rationale: The Supreme Court acknowledged the prolonged nature of the Cauvery water dispute and the failure of negotiations between the states. Recognizing the limitations of its jurisdiction in inter-state water disputes, the Court emphasized the mechanism provided under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, for such adjudication. Consequently, the Court directed the Union of India to constitute a tribunal to resolve the dispute. Regarding the request to restrain Karnataka from constructing dams, the Court refrained from issuing an injunction but underscored the importance of maintaining the status quo to prevent any actions that could exacerbate the dispute before the tribunal's decision. Analysis: This judgment underscores the judiciary's recognition of the complexities involved in inter-state water disputes and the importance of utilizing statutory mechanisms for their resolution. By directing the Union of India to constitute a tribunal, the Supreme Court reinforced the procedural framework established by the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, of 1956. The decision to maintain the status quo without granting an injunction reflects a balanced approach, aiming to prevent escalation while allowing the designated tribunal to adjudicate the matter comprehensively. This case highlights the significance of adhering to established legal processes in resolving inter-state disputes and the judiciary's role in facilitating such resolutions.