Article 262 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Here is a comprehensive explanation of Article 262 of the Constitution of India along with key case law:
🇮🇳 Article 262 – Adjudication of Disputes Relating to Waters of Inter-State Rivers or River Valleys
🔹 Text of Article 262:
(1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may, by law, provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint.
🔍 Explanation:
✅ Key Features:
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Scope | Disputes regarding inter-State rivers or river valleys |
| Legislative Competence | Parliament can legislate under List I, Entry 56 of the 7th Schedule |
| Jurisdiction Bar | Parliament may exclude jurisdiction of courts, including the Supreme Court |
| Nature | Enabling provision – does not by itself create a tribunal or bar jurisdiction |
| Purpose | To ensure a non-judicial resolution mechanism for complex water disputes |
🏛️ Legislation Enacted Under Article 262:
✅ Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (amended in 2002)
Enacted under Article 262.
Provides for establishment of tribunals to adjudicate disputes between States over water sharing.
Bars the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court, over matters referred to such tribunals.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 262:
🔹 State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000)
Citation: (2000) 3 SCC 379
Facts: Dispute over Krishna river waters.
Held:
Once a tribunal is constituted under the 1956 Act, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit on the same matter.
Article 262(2) allows for complete ouster of court jurisdiction.
🔹 State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2014)
Citation: (2014) 12 SCC 696
Facts: Mullaperiyar Dam dispute involving safety and water storage.
Held:
Supreme Court held that it could adjudicate constitutional issues, public safety, and dam maintenance, but not water-sharing disputes if already referred to a tribunal.
Distinguished between administrative and distributive disputes.
🔹 In Re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (2018)
Citation: (2018) 3 SCC 585
Facts: Long-standing dispute among Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry.
Held:
Supreme Court upheld the binding nature of tribunal awards under Article 262.
Modified the final award slightly, not on water sharing, but on quantum and interpretation.
Declared that tribunal decisions have the same force as that of a Supreme Court decree.
🔹 State of Haryana v. State of Punjab (2004)
Citation: (2004) 12 SCC 673
Facts: Dispute over Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal.
Held:
Supreme Court entertained the matter as it involved implementation of a tribunal decision, not the dispute itself.
Emphasized that implementation of a tribunal’s award is justiciable.
📌 Summary Table:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Article | 262 |
| Authority to Act | Parliament |
| Purpose | Adjudication of inter-State river water disputes |
| Courts’ Jurisdiction | Can be barred by law made under Article 262(2) |
| Key Law Enacted | Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 |
| Tribunal’s Power | Equivalent to Supreme Court decree |
📚 Important Concepts:
Entry 56, Union List: Parliament has exclusive power to regulate inter-State rivers and river valleys.
Tribunal under 1956 Act: A quasi-judicial body whose award is final and binding.
No appeal to courts after tribunal award is published in the official gazette.
🧠 Conclusion:
Article 262 represents a rare constitutional provision allowing complete ouster of judicial review in a specific domain—inter-State water disputes—to preserve federal harmony and provide a specialized mechanism through tribunals. However, courts retain a limited role in implementation and constitutional aspects.
RELATED Blog
0 comments