Summary
The Supreme Court accepted the corrected draft Cauvery Water Management Scheme as consistent with the Tribunal’s award, its February 2018 judgment and Section 6A. It rejected Karnataka’s and Kerala’s objections to demand indents and implementation powers, while stressing that allocations could not be reopened. Accepting the Union’s assurance of prompt implementation and its explanation for delay, the Court closed the contempt and connected proceedings and urged notification before the impending monsoon.
Issues
- Whether the corrected Cauvery management scheme improperly restricted State water powers or departed from the settled allocation.
- Whether the Union’s delay in framing the scheme warranted continued contempt proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Section 6A, Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956The corrected scheme establishing the Cauvery Water Management Authority and Regulation Committee was found consistent with the implementation power and the award as modified by the Court. Prompt completion and notification were expected. (¶¶ 1, 12, 19, 20)
- Clauses 9(3)(i), 9(3)(iii) and 9(3)(vii), Corrected draft Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018Demand indents and assessment of storage and distress were implementation mechanisms governed by the settled award and judgment, rather than powers to alter State shares or reopen allocation. (¶¶ 12, 15, 16, 17)
Held
- State legislative competence concerning water could not diminish the efficacy of the inter-State award, the Court’s modifications or the scheme necessary for their effective implementation. (¶ 14)
- Demand indents and reservoir information were needed to determine periodical releases consistently with the prescribed proportions and apportionment principles. They furthered equitable implementation rather than unlawfully impinging on State rights. (¶ 15)
- The assessors’ carry-over recommendation did not permit reopening matters already settled by the award and judgment. The Authority remained bound by those contours, while considering relevant contemporaneous factors, including distress conditions, when quantifying releases. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The Authority needed effective enforcement powers and could not be expected to issue directions mechanically. The corrected scheme was consistent with the award, judgment and Section 6A. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- In light of the completed corrected draft, the explanation of circumstances beyond the authority’s control and the Union’s assurance of prompt action, further contempt action was unnecessary. The Court expected Gazette notification and implementation with utmost dispatch before the impending monsoon. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
Result
All interlocutory and miscellaneous applications and contempt petitions disposed of. Corrected draft scheme accepted for prompt completion in accordance with law; Gazette notification and implementation expected before the impending monsoon.