Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal AIR 1992 SC 522: Case Analysis

Abstract

It was surely to avoid anarchism that any country swore to have “Law.” However, a law not implemented or enforced properly is even worse. Perhaps this is the reason why the independence of the judiciary has always been emphasized by the most revered jurists. The case that has been analyzed in this article is a clear manifestation of the extent of protection and justice an independent judiciary can ensure. It acquaints us with how the judiciary does not let the executive misuse its powers and safeguards the interests of people. Second, it also establishes the prudence of the framers of our Constitution when they chose a quasi-federal structure for our nation, wherein states are bound by the apex court and cannot act arbitrary under the guise of state interest. In the present case, there is a dispute over the waters of the Cauvery river among the States of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and
the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The State of Karnataka, being an upper-riparian state, tries to exploit the waters of the Cauvery in its own favor thereby depriving others of its use. In fact, it went to the extent of enacting legislation having effect above judiciary. This is the point where the role of an independent judiciary becomes inevitable. Had there been strict federalism, the dispute between two states over the waters of a river would have killed the masses in a water crisis. Being independent entities, the state would have paid no heed to the interests of the people of other states. But as our system is quasi-federal, states had to abide by the decision of the honorable Supreme Court, which decided in favor of people and not states. It ensured an equitable distribution of waters among the four states by enforcing the provisions of the Constitution, existing legislations, and the decisions of the
Tribunal constituted on this behalf. Although the case relates to Article 143 and is actually nothing but a reply to the questions asked by the President, it gives a complete account of the matter and at the same time clarifies the existing questions of law.