State of Karnataka by Its Chief Secretary vs P. K. Sinha and Anr.

Supreme Court by judgment dated 16.02.2018, while modifying the award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and allocating waters of Cauvery river to the States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala and Union Territory of Puducherry, directed Central Government to frame a scheme u/s. 6A of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 – Central Government with a view to arrive at a consensus for framing of the proposed Scheme, initiated consultations with party States/Union Territory – To avoid further litigation by the States, in respect of constitution and functions of the proposed Board, Central Government filed interlocutory application seeking certain clarifications – State of Tamil Nadu filed contempt petition complaining about non-framing of the scheme by the Central Government within a period of six weeks as granted by Supreme Court – Another contempt petition was filed by private party – Interlocutory applications were filed by State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Puducherry – Central Government produced Draft Scheme before Supreme Court – Appropriateness of Clauses 9(3)(i) and 9(3)(vii) as well as 9(3)(iii) in the Draft Scheme was questioned by State of Karnataka – State of Kerala contended that effect of the Scheme would impinge upon the rights of the States in respect of conservation and use of water which was exclusively a State subject covered by Entry 17 in List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution – Held: The fact that the subject of water forms part of Entry 17 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, cannot be the basis to whittle down the efficacy of the Award passed by the Tribunal as modified by Supreme Court and in particular the Scheme to ensure smooth, effective and efficient implementation of the Award of the Tribunal as modified by Supreme Court – The Draft Scheme has been drafted singularly for that purpose and the same will have to be taken forward to its logical end in accordance with law with promptitude – Award of the Tribunal qualifies the volume of river water to be shared and apportioned between the States – The parties cannot be allowed to reopen the issues already settled in the Award and as modified by Supreme Court, indirectly in the guise of questioning the appropriateness of clause 9(3)(iii) in the Draft Scheme – The Authority cannot be expected to issue directions mechanically and that the Authority must have complete power to enforce its directions so as to comply with the Award as modified by Supreme Court – Draft Scheme is in consonance with the dictum and directions in the Award and also in conformity with s. 6A of the 1956 Act – Draft Scheme to be taken to its logical and in accordance with law – Contempt petitions and the IAs disposed of – Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.