{"id":229152,"date":"1990-05-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-05-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990"},"modified":"2017-11-06T21:14:03","modified_gmt":"2017-11-06T15:44:03","slug":"tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990","title":{"rendered":"Tamil Nadu Cauvery … vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Tamil Nadu Cauvery … vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 1316, \t\t 1990 SCR (3)\t 83<\/div>\n
Author: M Rangnath<\/div>\n
Bench: Misra Rangnath<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTAMIL NADU CAUVERY NEERPPASANAVILAIPORULGAL VIVASAYIGAL NALA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/05\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nSAWANT, P.B.\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR 1316\t\t  1990 SCR  (3)\t 83\n 1990 SCC  (3) 440\t  JT 1990 (2)\t397\n 1990 SCALE  (1)866\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1992 SC 522\t (1)\n\n\nACT:\n    Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956--Sections 3, 4 &  11\nCauvery\t Water\tDispute--Government directed  to  constitute\nTribunal.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The appellant is a registered society of  agriculturists\nof Tamil Nadu, who are entitled to riparian rights of  Cauv-\nery  river  in cultivating their lands over  the  years.  It\nseeks from this Court that directions be given to the  Union\nof  India Respondent No. 1 to refer the dispute relating  to\nthe  water  utilization of the Cauvery river  and  equitable\ndistribution  thereof  in terms of section 4  of  the  Inter\nState  Water Disputes Act 1956. Also to issue a mandamus  to\nthe  State  of\tKarnataka not to proceed  to  construct\t dam\nprojects,  reservoirs  across the said river or\t its  tribu-\ntaries\twithin the state and to restore supply of  water  to\nthe State of Tamil Nadu as envisaged in the agreements dated\n18th  February, 1924. In this petition State  of  Karnataka,\nTamil  Nadu, Kerala and Union Territory of Pondicherry\thave\nalso been added as Respondent No. 2 to 5 respectively.\n    In\tthe  year 1970, the State of  Tamil  Nadu  requested\nUnion  of India to set up a Tribunal for settling the  ques-\ntion of equitable distribution of waters under sec. 3 of the\nAct. A suit was filed under Article 131 of the\tConstitution\nin  this Court but was withdrawn on political  consideration\nso as to evolve a mutual and negotiated settlement.\n    According to the petitioners it is submitted that sever-\nal  attempts  were made through bilateral  and\tmultilateral\ntalks  for a negotiated settlement but no solution could  be\nreached and the problem continued-\n84\n    The State of Karnataka filed several affidavits opposing\nthe  maintainability of the petition and the Union of  India\nhas also opposed the application on the basis of section  11\nof the Act.\n    The\t petition  was\tfiled on November 18,  1983  and  on\n12.12.83  the Court directed issue of notice. The  State  of\nTamil  Nadu supported and associated itself with  the  peti-\ntioner\tseeking\t the same relief on 6.5.87  the\t State\talso\nfiled  an affidavit in this Court supporting the  contention\nof the petitioner and also effectively joined the dispute by\nadopting the stand of the petitioner.\n    The\t mainstream of the river Cauvery has its  origin  in\nthe  hills  of\tCoorg. Some tributaries of  the\t river\thave\norigin\tin  the State of Kerala and others in the  State  of\nKarnataka.  The river flows for about 300 Kms. in the  State\nof  Karnataka and almost for an equal span within the  State\nof  Tamil  Nadu before joining the Bay of Bengal. It  is  an\ninter-state river as per Article 262, Entry 56 of List I  of\n7th  Schedule  of the Constitution, so\tthe  regulation\t and\ndevelopment  of the said river is under the control  of\t the\nUnion  of India and is declared by Parliament by law  to  be\nexpedient in the public interest.\n    Article  262 of the constitution provides for  adjudica-\ntion  of disputes (1) with respect to the use,\tdistribution\nand control of the waters (2) Parliament may by law  provide\nthat  neither  the Supreme Court or any\t other\tCourt  shall\nexercise  jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute as  is\nreferred to in clause (1).\n    As per section 3 of the Act if it appears to the Govern-\nment  of any State that a water dispute with the  Government\nof  another  State  has arisen or likely to  arise  and\t the\ninterests of the State or of any of the inhabitance, thereof\nare  likely to be affected prejudicially, the State  Govern-\nment in the prescribed manner request the Central Government\nto refer the Water dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication.\nAllowing the petition, this Court,\n    HELD:  This\t dispute in question is one over  which\t the\npeople and the State of Tamil Nadu have been clamouring\t for\nmore  than  20 years. The matter has been  pending  in\tthis\nCourt for the last 6 1\/2 years. It is on\n85\nrecord that over these years 26 sittings of the Chief Minis-\nters of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu have been there and in some of\nthese  even  the Central Ministers of Water  Resources\thave\nalso  participated but have not succeeded in bringing  about\nnegotiated settlement. No serious attempt seems to have been\nmade  to  have the dispute resolved. This  Court  has  given\nseveral adjournments to accommodate the attempts for negoti-\nations\tbecause of the nature of the subject  matter.  Ulti-\nmately on 26.2.90 order by the Court was given that the Writ\nPetition would be listed for final hearing on 24.4.90  since\nsufficient  opportunity and time to these two states at\t the\nbehest of the Central Government or otherwise has been given\nto  arrive at negotiated settlement. On 26th April 1990\t the\nUnion of India also informed the Court that Central  Govern-\nment did not want to undertake any further negotiations\t and\nleft  the  matter for the disposal by  this  Court.  [89G-H;\n90B-C; 91D]\n    There was no reason for the dispute to protrect for such\na  long\t period.  Any further delay  in\t taking\t statutority\nmandated action is bound to exasperate the feelings  further\nand lead to more bitterness. [91H; 92A]\n   Section  4 of the Act indicates that on the basis of\t the\nrequest\t referred to in Section 3, if Central Government  is\nof  the\t opinion  that water dispute cannot  be\t settled  by\nnegotiation,  it is mandatory for the Central Government  to\nconstitute a Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute. [92B]\n    The\t Central Government to fulfil the statutory  obliga-\ntion  notify in the official Gazette the constitution of  an\nappropriate  tribunal  for  the adjudication  of  the  Water\nDispute.  The  same should be done within a  period  of\t one\nmonth. [92D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 13347 of 1983.
\n(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).\n<\/p>\n
       K.K.  Venugopal, C.S. Vaidyanathan and K.V.  Viswana-
\nthan for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    P.K. Goswami,Additional Solicitor General, P.S. Poti, K.
\nParasaran,  S.S.  Javalai, and F.S. Nariman,  B.V.  Acharya,
\nAdvocate  General,  P.R. Ramasesh, Ms. A.  Subhashini,\tT.T.
\nKunhikanan,  V. Krishnamurthy, K. Ramkumar and R.  Karuppan,
\nin-person the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
86<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    RANGANATH MISRA, J. This is an application under Article
\n32  of\tthe  Constitution filed by the\tTamil  Nadu  Cauvery
\nNeerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimal Padhugappu
\nSangam\twhich is said to be a society registered  under\t the
\nTamil Nadu Societies Registration Act asking this Court\t for
\ndirection to the Union of India, respondent No. 1, to  refer
\nthe dispute relating to the water utilisation of the Cauvery
\nriver and equitable distribution thereof in terms of section
\n4  of  the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and  for  a
\nmandamus  to the State of Karnataka not to proceed with\t the
\nconstruction  of  dams, projects and reservoirs\t across\t the
\nsaid river and\/or on any of its tributaries within the State
\nand to restore supply of water to the State of Tamil Nadu as
\nenvisaged in the agreements dated 18th of February, 1924. To
\nthe petition States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala\t and
\nthe  Union Territory of Pondicherry have been added  as\t re-
\nspondents 2 to 5 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe petition it has been alleged that the  petition-
\ner’s  society is an organisation of agriculturists of  Tamil
\nNadu  and they are entitled to the lower reparian rights  of
\nCauvery\t river for cultivating their lands over\t the  years.
\nThe  petitioner alleges that inflow into the Cauvery at\t the
\nMettur\tdam point as also down the stream  has\tconsiderably
\ndiminished  due\t to construction of new dams,  projects\t and
\nreservoirs  across river Cauvery and its tributaries by\t the
\nState  of Karnataka within its own boundaries. In  the\tyear
\n1970  the  State of Tamil Nadu had requested  the  Union  of
\nIndia to set up a tribunal and refer the question of equita-
\nble  distribution of Cauvery waters under section 3  of\t the
\nAct.  A suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution  by
\nthe Tamil Nadu State in this Court was withdrawn on  politi-
\ncal  consideration and in anticipation of the evolving of  a
\nmutual\tand negotiated settlement. Petitions of the  present
\ntype had also been filed in this Court being writ  petitions
\nNos. 303 and 304 of 1971 but on 24.7.75 they were  withdrawn
\non  account of suspension of the Fundamental  Rights  during
\nthe period of Emergency. Petitioner has further alleged that
\nthe  sharing of the Cauvery waters between the\tthen  Madras
\nState and the then princely State of Mysore was covered by a
\nset of agreements reached in 1892 and 1924. According to the
\npetitioner several attempts were made through bilateral\t and
\nmultilateral talks for a negotiated settlement for equitable
\ndistribution of the Cauvery waters but no solution could  be
\nreached\t and the problem continued. Since we are not on\t the
\nmerits\tof the matter relating to distribution of waters  it
\nis unnecessary to give any details of the further pleadings.\n<\/p>\n
87<\/span><\/p>\n
    The State of Karnataka by filing several affidavits\t has
\nopposed\t the  maintainability of the petition  as  also\t the
\ntenability of the plea for relief. The Union of India in the
\nMinistry  of Water Resources has also opposed the  maintain-
\nability\t of the application. Reliance has been placed on  s.
\n11 of the Act to which we shall presently made a reference.
\n    At\tthe hearing, Mr. Nariman on behalf of the  State  of
\nKarnataka  along with the Advocate General of the State\t and
\nthe Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India\thave
\nreiterated the aforesaid stands.\n<\/p>\n
    The State of Tamil Nadu filed an affidavit in this Court
\non  6th\t of  May, 1987, wherein it not\tonly  supported\t the
\ncontention  of\tthe petitioner but  effectively\t joined\t the
\ndispute\t by adopting the stand of the petitioner. The  State
\nof Kerala has left the matter to the good sense of Union  of
\nIndia to bring about an amicable settlement. At the  hearing
\nof  the\t matter the Union Territory of Pondicherry  was\t not
\nrepresented though we were told that their stand was  common
\nwith that of the State of Tamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n
    This  petition  was\t filed\ton  November  18,  1983;  on
\n12.12.83 this Court directed issue of notice and as  already
\npointed out the State of Tamil Nadu by its affidavit of\t 6th
\nof  May, 1987, came to the support the petitioner  in  toto.
\nThe adoption by the State of Tamil Nadu of the\tpetitioner’s
\nstand  by associating itself with the petitioner is  perhaps
\ntotal.\tBefore this Court, societies like the petitioner  as
\nalso  the  State of Tamil Nadu and earlier applied  for\t the
\nsame  relief  as the petitioner seeks. In view of  the\tfact
\nthat  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  has\tnow  supported\t the
\npetitioner  entirely  and without any  reservation  and\t the
\nCourt  has kept the matter before it for about 7 years,\t now
\nto  throw  out the petition at this stage by  accepting\t the
\nobjection raised on behalf of the State of Karnataka that  a
\npetition  of  a society like the petitioner for\t the  relief
\nindicated  is not maintainable would be ignoring the  actual
\nstate of affairs, would be too technical an approach and  in
\nour view would be wholly unfair and unjust. Accordingly,  we
\ntreat this petition as one in which the State of Tamil\tNadu
\nis  indeed the petitioner though we have not made  a  formal
\norder of transposition in the absence of a specific request.
\n    The\t main stream of river Cauvery has its origin in\t the
\nhills  of Coorg. Some tributaries have their origin  in\t the
\nState of Kerala while some having their origin\tin Karnataka
\nhave joined the river. The
\n88<\/span>
\nriver  flows  for a distance of about 300  Kms.\t within\t the
\nState of Karnataka and almost an equal span within the State
\nof Tamil Nadu before it ultimately joins the Bay of  Bengal.
\nIt  has\t not been disputed that Cauvery is  an\tinter-State.
\nriver within the meaning of Article 262 of the Constitution.
\nEntry 56 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the  Constitu-
\ntion runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
“56.  Regulation and development of inter-State\t rivers\t and
\nriver  valleys\tto the extent to which such  regulation\t and
\ndevelopment  under the control of the Union is\tdeclared  by
\nParliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.”
\nArticle 262 provides:\n<\/p>\n
“Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of\t inter-State
\nrivers\tor river valleys–(1) Parliament may by law  provide
\nfor  the adjudication of any dispute or complaint  with\t re-
\nspect to the use, distribution or control of the waters\t of,
\nor in, any inter-State river or, river valley.
\n(2)  Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,  Parlia-
\nment  may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court\t nor
\nany  other court shall exercise jurisdiction in\t respect  of
\nany  such dispute or complaint as is referred to  in  clause
\n(1).”\n<\/p>\n
    It is not disputed before us that the Inter-State  Water
\nDisputes Act, 1956 (33 of 1956) is a legislation within\t the
\nmeaning of this Article.\n<\/p>\n
Section 3 of the Act provides:\n<\/p>\n
“3.  If\t it appears to the Government of any  State  that  a
\nwater  dispute\twith  the Government of\t another  State\t has
\narisen or is likely to arise by reason of the fact that\t the
\ninterests of the State, or of any of the inhabitance  there-
\nof,  in the waters of an inter-State river or  river  valley
\nhave 1Seen, or are likely to be, affected prejudicially by–\n<\/p>\n
(a)…………………\n<\/p>\n
(b)…………………\n<\/p>\n
(c)…………………\n<\/p>\n
89<\/span><\/p>\n
the State Government may, in such form and manner as may  be
\nprescribed,  request  the Central Government  to  refer\t the
\nwater dispute to a tribunal for adjudication.”
\nSection 11 of the Act provides:\n<\/p>\n
“11.  Notwithstanding anything contained in any\t other\tlaw,
\nneither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have  or
\nexercise jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute  which
\nmay be referred to a Tribunal under this Act.
\n    It\tis thus clear that s. 11 of the Act bars the  juris-
\ndiction\t of  all courts including this\tCourt  to  entertain
\nadjudication  of disputes which are referable to a  tribunal
\nunder  s. 3 of the Act. Therefore, this Court has no  juris-
\ndiction to enter upon the factual aspects raised in the writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
    No\tserious dispute, however, has been raised before  us
\nchallenging  our jurisdiction to consider the claim  in\t the
\nwrit petition confined to the question of a reference of the
\ndispute to a tribunal within the meaning of s. 3 of the Act.
\nSection 4 of the Act provides:\n<\/p>\n
“4.  (1) When any request under section 3 is  received\tfrom
\nany State Government in respect of any water dispute and the
\nCentral\t Government  is of opinion that\t the  water  dispute
\ncannot\tbe settled by negotiations, the\t Central  Government
\nshall, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute a
\nWater  Disputes Tribunal for the adjudication of  the  water
\ndispute.\n<\/p>\n
(2)…………………\n<\/p>\n
(3)…………………\n<\/p>\n
    Undoubtedly\t s.  4 while vesting power  in\tthe  Central
\nGovernment for setting up a Tribunal has made it conditional
\nupon  the  forming of the requisite opinion by\tthe  Central
\nGovernment.  The dispute in question is one over  which\t the
\npeople and the State of Tamil Nadu have been clamouring\t for
\nmore than 20 years now. The matter has been pending in\tthis
\nCourt for more than 6 1\/2 years. It is on record that during
\nthis  period as many as 26 sittings spread over\t many  years
\nhave been held in which the Chief Ministers of the Karnataka
\nand  Tamil  Nadu have unsuccessfully tried  to\tbring  about
\nsettlement; some of
\n90<\/span>
\nthese have been at the instance of the Central Government in
\nwhich the Union Minister for Water Resources and others have
\nparticipated.\n<\/p>\n
    There  was\ta time, after the dispute  arose,  when\t the
\nGovernments  in\t the States of Karnataka and Tamil  Nadu  as
\nalso  at the Centre were run by one common political  party.
\nPerhaps\t if  the Centre had intervened in an  effective\t way
\nduring that period there was considerable chance of  settle-
\nment  by negotiation. No serious attempt seems to have\tbeen
\nmade  at that time to have the dispute resolved and  it\t has
\nbeen shelved and allowed to catch up momentum and give\trise
\nto  issues of sensitivity. This case after a number  of\t ad-
\njournments  freely  granted  by this Court in  view  of\t the
\nnature\tof the subject-matter, was called on 26.2.1990\twhen
\nthe following order was made:\n<\/p>\n
“The  writ  petition  is adjourned to  24.4.1990  for  final
\nhearing\t and  is to be listed at the top of  the  board.  No
\nfurther adjournment shall be granted.\n<\/p>\n
\t  The  Advocate Generals of the States of  Karnataka
\nand  Tamil  Nadu  are present in  Court.  Learned  Solicitor
\nGeneral\t is also present. Counsel in W.P. No.  13347\/83\t in-
\nsists  that  the matter should not be further  adjourned  as
\nseveral\t adjournments  on the same  plea  of  reconciliation
\nbetween\t the  two States have not borne any  fruit.  Learned
\nSolicitor General has told us that in course of the month of
\nMarch, the Chief Ministers of the two States shall meet.  He
\nhas  also  told that in the month of February a\t meeting  of
\nChief Ministers of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and  Pondi-
\ncherry had been called but that could not be held on account
\nof  the\t air  crash at Bangalore.  In  these  circumstances,
\nleaving\t the parties to negotiate, we have decided that\t the
\nmatter shall now be heard on merits in the event no  settle-
\nment takes place by then.”\n<\/p>\n
A  long adjournment of about two months was then granted  to
\nprovide\t a further opportunity of negotiation. We  have\t now
\nbeen  told that the two Chief Ministers met on the  19th  of
\nApril, 1990, and a further meeting was stipulated to be held
\non the following day when the Minister of Water Resources of
\nthe Central’ Government was also to participate. The meeting
\nof the two Chief Ministers failed to bring about any  result
\nand  the meeting stipulated for the following day  for\tsome
\nreason\tor the other did not take place. When we  heard\t the
\nmatter on the 24th of April, 1990, the counsel for the State
\nof Tamil
\n91<\/span>
\nNadu in clearest terms indicated that the Chief Minister  of
\nthe  State was not further prepared to join the\t negotiating
\ntable.\tAn affidavit along with the telex  message  received
\nfrom Madras supporting its stand has now been made a part of
\nthe record.\n<\/p>\n
    26\tattempts within a period of four to five  years\t and
\nseveral more adjournments by this Court to accommodate these
\nattempts for negotiation were certainly sufficient  opportu-
\nnity  and  time\t to these two States at the  behest  of\t the
\nCentre or otherwise to negotiate the settlement. Since these
\nattempts have failed, it would be reasonable undoubtedly  to
\nhold  that  the dispute cannot be settled  by  negotiations.
\nYet,  since  the requisite opinion to be formed\t is  of\t the
\nCentral\t Government  as required by s 4 of the Act  when  we
\nreserved judgment on the 24th of April, 1990, we allowed two
\ndays’  time to the learned Additional Solicitor General\t for
\nthe  Central Government to report to the Court the  reaction
\nof  the Central Government. Mr. Goswami, learned  Additional
\nSolicitor General appearing for the Union of India  informed
\nus  on the 26th April, 1990, in the presence of the  counsel
\nfor  the other parties that the Central Government  did\t not
\nwant  to  undertake  any further negotiation  and  left\t the
\nmatter for disposal by the Court. In these circumstances, we
\nhave  no  option but to conclude that a\t clear\tpicture\t has
\nemerged that settlement by negotiation cannot be arrived  at
\nand taking the developments in the matter as indicated above
\nit must be held that the Central Government is also of\tthat
\nopinion\t particularly when the Chief Minister of Tamil\tNadu
\nhas indicated that he is no more prepared to loin the  nego-
\ntiations.\n<\/p>\n
     We are cognizant of the fact that the matter is a\tvery
\nsensitive one. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that
\nthe Government at the Centre is by one political party while
\nthe  respective\t Governments in the two States\tare  run  by
\ndifferent political parties. The dispute involved is, howev-
\ner, one which affects the southern States of Kerala,  Karna-
\ntaka and Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of\tPondicherry.
\nThe disputes of this nature have the potentiality of  creat-
\ning  avoidable feelings of bitterness among _the peoples  of
\nthe  States concerned. The longer the disputes linger,\tmore
\nthe  bitterness. The Central Government as the\tguardian  of
\nthe  interests of the people in all the States must,  there-
\nfore,  on  all such occasions take prompt steps to  set\t the
\nConstitutional machinery in motion. Fortunately, the Parlia-
\nment  has by enacting the law vested the Central  Government
\nwith  the  power  to resolve such  disputes  effectively  by
\nreferring the matter to an impartial Tribunal. There was  no
\nreason,\t therefore, for the dispute to protract for  such  a
\nlong time. Any further delay in taking the statutorily
\n92<\/span>
\nmandate\t action is bound to exasperate the feelings  further
\nand  lead  to more bitterness. It is,  therefore,  necessary
\nthat  the legal machinery provided by the statute is set  in
\nmotion before the dispute escalates. A stitch in time  saves
\nnine.  What is true for an individual is perhaps  more\ttrue
\nfor the nation.\n<\/p>\n
    Section  4\tindicates that on the basis of\tthe  request
\nreferred to in s. 3 of the Act, if Central Government is  of
\nthe  opinion  that the water dispute cannot  be\t settled  by
\nnegotiation, it is mandatory for the’ Central Government  to
\nconstitute  a Tribunal for adjudication of the\tdispute.  We
\nwere  shown the Bill where in s. 4 the word ‘may’ was  used.
\nParliament, however, substituted that word by ‘shall’ in the
\nAct. Once we come to the conclusion that a stage has reached
\nwhen the Central Government must be held to be of the  opin-
\nion  that  the\twater dispute can no longer  be\t settled  by
\nnegotiation, it thus becomes its obligation to constitute  a
\nTribunal and refer the dispute to it as stipulated under  s.
\n4 of the Act. We therefore, direct the Central Government to
\nfulfil\tits statutory obligation and notify in the  official
\ngazette the constitution of an appropriate tribunal for\t the
\nadjudication  of  the water dispute referred to\t in  earlier
\npart  of  this\tjudgment. We further direct  that  the\tsame
\nshould be done within a period of one month from today.\t The
\nwrit petition is accordingly allowed. There shall,  however,
\nbe no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.B.\t\t\t\t\t\t    Petition\nallowed.\n93<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Tamil Nadu Cauvery … vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 1316, 1990 SCR (3) 83 Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath PETITIONER: TAMIL NADU CAUVERY NEERPPASANAVILAIPORULGAL VIVASAYIGAL NALA Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/05\/1990 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-229152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nTamil Nadu Cauvery ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamil Nadu Cauvery ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1990-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-06T15:44:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamil Nadu Cauvery … vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T15:44:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990\"},\"wordCount\":2734,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990\",\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Cauvery ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T15:44:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Cauvery … vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 1990\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tamil Nadu Cauvery ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamil Nadu Cauvery ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-06T15:44:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamil Nadu Cauvery … vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 1990","datePublished":"1990-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T15:44:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990"},"wordCount":2734,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990","name":"Tamil Nadu Cauvery ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T15:44:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-cauvery-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-4-may-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamil Nadu Cauvery … vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 1990"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229152","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=229152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229152\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}