Case Note & Summary
The State of Tamil Nadu filed a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India against Karnataka and the Union of India, challenging Karnataka's construction of check dams on the Pennaiyar River without prior consent, as required by the 1892 Agreement -- Tamil Nadu sought declarations of illegality, permanent and mandatory injunctions, and directions to ensure natural water flow -- Karnataka argued the 1892 Agreement was a political arrangement that ceased post-independence -- The Supreme Court found the Agreement binding and that Karnataka's actions violated it, but dismissed the suit, noting that the dispute should be adjudicated by a Tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 -- The Court also dismissed an interim application due to near-completion of construction and directed Tamil Nadu to pursue statutory remedies, leading to the initiation of Tribunal constitution proceedings
Headnote
The Supreme Court, in its original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution of India, dismissed a suit filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the State of Karnataka and the Union of India regarding the Pennaiyar River water dispute -- The plaintiff-State sought declarations and injunctions against Karnataka's construction of check dams, alleging violations of the 1892 Agreement and riparian rights -- The Court held that the 1892 Agreement remains binding and enforceable, and Karnataka's actions required prior consent from Tamil Nadu -- However, the Court declined to grant interim relief due to substantial completion of construction and directed the parties to resolve the dispute through a Tribunal constituted under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 -- The judgment emphasizes the statutory framework for inter-state water disputes and the binding nature of historical agreements between States
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether the unilateral construction of check dams by Karnataka without Tamil Nadu's consent violates the 1892 Agreement and riparian rights, and the appropriate forum for adjudication under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the suit, upholding the binding nature of the 1892 Agreement but directing the parties to resolve the dispute through a Tribunal constituted under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, and dismissed interim relief applications
Original Suit No. 1 of 2018
VIKRAM NATH J. , N. V. ANJARIA J.
Mr. V. Krishnamurthy and Mr. P. Wilson, learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff-State of Tamil Nadu, Mr. Shyam Diwan and Mr. Mohan V. Katarki learned Senior counsel, along with Mr. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned AdvocateGeneral, appearing for the defendant-State of Karnataka and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for defendant no. 2 - Union of India
State of Karnataka, Union of India
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India regarding inter-state river water dispute
Remedy Sought
Tamil Nadu sought declarations, permanent and mandatory injunctions, and directions against Karnataka's construction activities and to the Union of India
Filing Reason
Karnataka's unilateral construction of check dams on the Pennaiyar River without prior consent, allegedly violating the 1892 Agreement and riparian rights
Previous Decisions
Interim application dismissed on 14 November 2019 due to near-completion of construction; plaintiff directed to seek Tribunal constitution under ISRWDA
Issues
Whether the 1892 Agreement between Madras and Mysore is binding and enforceable post-independence
Whether Karnataka's construction of check dams without Tamil Nadu's consent violates riparian rights and the Agreement
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the reliefs sought or direct parties to the Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal
Submissions/Arguments
Tamil Nadu argued that the 1892 Agreement requires prior consent for any construction on the river, and Karnataka's actions are illegal
Karnataka contended that the 1892 Agreement was a political arrangement that ceased to have effect after independence, and no consent is required
Ratio Decidendi
Historical agreements between States are binding unless superseded by law; inter-state water disputes should be adjudicated through statutory mechanisms like the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956; the Court may decline relief if statutory remedies are available and more appropriate
Judgment Excerpts
The present suit has been instituted by the State of Tamil Nadu invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India
According to the plaintiff-State, the dispute centres around the sharing of the waters of the Pennaiyar River
The defendant-State asserted that the Agreement of 1892 was merely a political arrangement and had ceased to have effect upon independence
This Court dismissed the interim application, primarily on the ground that nearly 75% of the construction work had already been completed
Procedural History
Suit filed on 18 May 2018; pleadings completed on 7 May 2019; interim application dismissed on 14 November 2019; complaint under Section 3 of ISRWDA lodged on 30 November 2019; further application filed on 16 December 2019; affidavit by Union of India filed on 2 January 2025
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
