REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 512 OF 2002

“IN RE : NETWORKING OF RIVERS”

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 668 OF 2002

J U D G M E N T

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Nearly ten years back, the petitioner in Writ Petition  

(Civil) No. 668 of 2002, a practicing advocate, instituted the  

petition  based  on  some  study  that  there  was  a  need  to  

conserve water and properly utilize the available resources.  

Thus,  the  present  petition  has  been  instituted  with  the  

following prayers:-

“a. Issue  an  appropriate  writ  order  or  direction, more particularly a writ in  the nature of Mandamus directing the  respondent no. 1 to take appropriate  

1

steps/action  to  nationalize  all  the  rivers in the country.

b. Issue  an  appropriate  writ  order  or  direction, more particularly a writ in  the  nature  of  Mandamus,  directing  the  respondent  No.  1  to  take  appropriate steps/action to inter link  the rivers in the southern peninsula  namely,  Ganga,  Kaveri,  Vaigai  and  Tambaravani.

c. Issue  an  appropriate  writ  order  or  direction in the nature of mandamus  directing  the  respondents  to  formulate  a  scheme  whereby  the  water  from  the  west  flowing  rivers  could  be  channelized  and  equitably  distributed.”

2. The above directions were sought by the petitioner  

against the Central Government as well as against various  

State Governments, for effective management of the water  

resources in the country by nationalization and inter-linking  

of rivers from Ganga - Cauveri, Vaigai-Tambaravarmi up to  

Cape Kumari.   According to him, as early as in 1834, Sir  

Arthur  Cotton, who  had  constructed  the  Godavari  and  

Krishna dams, suggested a plan called the ‘Arthur Cotton  

2

Scheme’ to link the Ganga and Cauveri rivers.  In 1930, Sir  

C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar also suggested and supported such  

-

a  scheme.    Thereafter,  various  political  leaders  of  the  

country have supported the cause;  but no such schemes  

have  actually  been  implemented.    It  is  the  case  of  the  

petitioner that the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956  (for  

short ‘the Act’) and the River Boards Act, 1956 were enacted  

by the Parliament under Article 262 read with Entry 56 of  

List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India,  

1950 (hereafter, ‘the Constitution’).   Due to reluctance of  

water-rich States, the National Water Development Agency  

(hereafter,  ‘NWDA’)  has  not  been  allowed  to  undertake  

detailed survey and it is argued that only by nationalization  

of the rivers, by the Government of India, this problem can  

be resolved to some extent.   The petitioner had filed a writ  

before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, being Writ  

Petition No. 6207 of 1983, praying for various reliefs.   This  

Writ Petition was disposed of without any effective orders by  

the High Court.   Persisting with his effort, the petitioner  

3

earlier  filed  writ  petitions  before  this  Court,  being  Writ  

Petition (C) No. 75 of 1998 and Writ Petition (C) No. 15 of -

1999,  praying  inter  alia for  nationalized  navigation  and  

inter-linking of all the rivers in the country.  

3. We must notice, to put the records straight, that on  

29th September, 1994, a Bench of this Court took suo motu  

notice  of  a write-up that  had appeared in the Hindustan  

Times newspaper, dated 18th July, 1994, titled “And quiet  

flows the maili Yamuna”.  Notice was issued to the Central  

Pollution  Control  Board,  Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi,  

Irrigation and Flood Department of the Government of India,  

National  Capital  Territory  of  Delhi  and  the  Delhi  

Administration.   Since  then,  the  writ  petition  is  being  

continuously monitored by this Court, till date.  During the  

pendency of this writ petition, I.A. No. 27 came to be filed,  

wherein the learned Amicus Curiae in that case referred to  

the address of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, the then President of  

India, on the eve of the Independence Day.  This, inter alia,  

related to creating a network between various rivers in the  

4

country, with a view to deal with the paradoxical situation  

of floods in one part of the country and droughts in other  

parts.  In other words, it related to the inter-linking of rivers  

-

and taking of other water management measures.  On 16th  

September, 2002, this Court, while considering the said I.A.,  

directed that the application be treated as an independent  

writ  petition  and  issued  notice  to  the  various  State  

Governments as well as the Attorney General for India and  

passed the following order:-

“Based on the speech of the President on  the Independence Day Eve relating to the  need of networking of the rivers because  of  the  paradoxical  phenomenon of  flood  in  one  part  of  the  country  while  some  other  parts  face  drought  at  the  same  time, the present application is filed.   It  will be more appropriate to treat to treat  it  as  independent  Public  Interest  Litigation with the cause title   “IN RE :  NETWORKING  OF  RIVERS  --  v.  ---”  Amended  cause  title  be  filed  within  a  week.

Issue  notice  returnable  on  30th  September,  2002  to  the  respondents  as  well as to the Attorney General.    

5

Serve notice on the standing counsel  of  the respective States.

Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.”

4. This is how I.A. No. 27 in Writ Petition (Civil)  No.  

725 of 1994 was converted into Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512  

of -

2002. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512 of 2002 was taken up  

for hearing and notice was issued to all the States, inviting  

affidavits regarding their stance on the issue of networking  

of rivers.  

5. In view of  the  above  order,  the  petitioner  in  Writ  

Petition (Civil) No. 668 of 2002  withdrew Writ Petition (C)  

No. 75 of 1998 as well as Writ Petition (C) 15 of 1999, which  

leave was granted by this Court.

6. As already discussed above, the petitioner had filed  

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 668 of 2002 with somewhat similar  

prayers as contained in I.A. No. 27.   In that writ petition,  

the  petitioner  has  averred  that  no  prayer  with  regard  to  

inter  linking  of  rivers  covering  the  southern  part  of  the  

6

Peninsular  Region had been claimed and it  was also  his  

contention that the southern part was most drought prone  

and had been witnessing more inter-state water disputes.

Thus, he had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 668 of  

2002 and prayers made therein were liable to be allowed.  

-

7. In  the  present  case,  we  are  concerned  with  Writ  

Petition  (C)  No.668 of  2002,  Writ  Petition  (C)  No.  512  of  

2002 as well as the I.A.s and the contempt petitions filed in  

these two petitions.  Accordingly, this order shall dispose of  

all these matters but we make it clear that presently, we are  

not dealing with Writ Petition (C) No. 725 of 1994.  

8. It has also been averred by the petitioners and the  

intervenors  in  these  petitions  that  the  need  to  conserve  

water resources and assuring their optimum consumption  

can be seen from the steps taken in this regard, not only by  

the developed countries but also by developing and under-

developed countries.   The Government of India has always  

shown considerable concern regarding the management of  

7

water  resources  in  the  country  and had framed,  for  this  

purpose, the National Water Policy which is being updated  

on a yearly basis. The National Water Policy seeks to make  

available water supply to those areas which face shortages.  

This aspect of the matter could be effectively dealt with, only  

if  the  various  rivers  in  the  country  are  linked  and  are  

nationalized.  This has been a matter of public debate and -

discussion for a considerable time and still continues to be  

so, without showing any reflection of ground reality.

9. The  Ministry  of  Irrigation,  along  with  the  Central  

Water  Commission,  had  formulated  in  the  year  1980  a  

National Perspective Plan (NPP) for optimum utilization of  

water resources in the country which envisaged inter-basin  

transfer of water from water-surplus to water-deficit areas.  

Apart from diverting water from rivers which are surplus, to  

deficit areas, the river linking plan in its ultimate stage of  

development  will  also  enable  flood  moderation.   It  was  

comprised  of  two  components:  Peninsular  Rivers  

Development and Himalayan Rivers Development. The first  

8

involved  major  inter-linking  of  the  river  systems and the  

latter  envisaged  the  construction of  storage  reservoirs  on  

the principal tributaries of rivers Ganga and Brahmaputra  

in  India,  Bhutan  and  Nepal.  This  was  to  help  transfer  

surplus flows of the eastern tributaries of the Ganga to the  

West,  apart  from  linking  the  main  Brahmaputra  and  its  

tributaries  with  the  Ganga  and  Mahanadi  rivers.  The  

scheme is divided into four major parts:

i) -

ii) Interlinking  of  Mahanadi-Godavari-Krishna-

Cauvery  rivers  and  building  storages  at  

potential sites in these basins.

iii) Interlinking  of  West  flowing  rivers  north  of  

Bombay and south of Tapi.

iv) Interlinking of rivers Ken & Chambal.

v) Diversion  of  other  west  flowing  rivers  from  

Kerala.

9

10. The petitioners have also made several suggestions  

which have been appreciated by the competent authorities  

on consideration. It is emphasized that the cost is negligible  

when  compared  to  the  potential  benefits  which  may  be  

bestowed on the nation.   The petitioners rely upon Article  

262 of the Constitution, read along with Entry 17, List II  

and  Entry  56  of  List  I  of  the  Seventh  Schedule  to  the  

Constitution to substantiate their submissions. Finally, the  

petitioners submit that the preservation of water resources  

is  a  part  of  the  right  to  life  and livelihood,  enshrined in  

Article  21  of  the  Constitution  and  that  the  Central  

Government  should  take  immediate  and  urgent  steps  to  

nationalize the rivers, so that equitable and proper -

distribution of water can be ensured for the betterment of  

the population.  According to them, the Central Government  

should also adopt all necessary measures, both scientifically  

and naturally, to increase the usable water resources and to  

preserve whatever resources the Union of India has already  

been naturally gifted with.   

10

11. As a result and because of the inaction on the part  

of the Central Government and the State Governments, it is  

submitted that grant of the reliefs as prayed for in the writ  

petition  would  be  in  consonance  with  the  constitutional  

spirit and in the larger public interest.

12. The learned Amicus Curiae, who had been pursuing  

this public cause for a number of years, in furtherance to  

the request of this Court, has also submitted a detailed note  

with  regard  to  the  background  and  summary  of  the  

proceedings in these petitions.

13. As per the learned  Amicus Curiae, on 14th August,  

2002, the then President of India, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, in  

his address to the nation on the eve of Independence Day, -

had observed that the need of the hour was the creation of a  

Water Mission which,  inter  alia,  would  look  into  the  

question of networking of rivers with a view to deal with the  

paradoxical  situation of  floods in one part  of the country  

and drought in the other.    Based on this and as afore-

recorded, a notice was issued, on 16th September, 2002, to  

11

the  States  and  the  Attorney  General  for  India  as  

respondents.   In response to the said notice, none of the  

States or Union Territories, except the State of Tamil Nadu,  

had filed affidavits supporting/opposing the prayers made  

in the writ petition. The time for filing of affidavits was again  

extended  up  to  30th September,  2002,  but  no  further  

affidavits were received by that time.  

14. The  learned  then  Attorney  General  for  India,  on  

behalf  of  the Union of  India,  stated that the Government  

had accepted the concept of interlinking of rivers and a High  

Powered  Task  Force  would  be  formed.    Therefore,  this  

Court, vide Order dated 31st October, 2002, recorded that  

there  is  in-principle  consensus  amongst  all  States  to  go  

ahead with the project of interlinking of rivers.   

-

15. Vide Order dated 30th August, 2004, it was noticed  

by this Court that, though there had been a change in the  

Government, the then Solicitor General,  appearing for the  

12

Government, informed this Court that a decision had been  

taken, in principle, to continue with interlinking of rivers.   

16. A high level Task Force was set up.  However, vide  

order dated 5th May, 2003, this Court observed that inputs  

from other experts, in many fields, were necessary and that  

the  Task  Force  was  to  give  due  consideration  to  such  

inputs.  Feasibility Reports (hereafter, ‘FR’)  were prepared  

for the intended links.   Subsequently, vide its order dated  

8th April, 2005, this Court made it absolutely clear that the  

orders of the Court in these respects have to be complied  

with in letter and spirit.  The FR of all links were to be put  

on the website after their completion.  This Court had also  

made  observations  that  the  prior  consent  of  any  State  

Government was not necessary for placing the FRs on the  

website  and  directed  them  to  be  so  placed.  With  great  

persuasion and efforts, the FRs of 16 links had been placed  

on the website.  At the request of the Amicus, the website -

was  ordered  to  be  made  interactive  so  that  people  could  

submit their response thereto.   

13

17. The status report filed on behalf of the Government  

of India also showed that a committee of environmentalists,  

social activists and other experts would be constituted to be  

involved  in  the  consultative  process  of  formulation  and  

execution of the entire project.   

18. The  status  reports  filed,  from time  to  time,  have  

been considered by this Court.   

19. Now,  we  may  deal  with  the  response  of  various  

States,  as  they  appear  from  the  record  before  us.  The  

response affidavits have been filed on behalf of ten States.  

However, the remaining States have not responded, despite  

the  grant  of  repeated  opportunities  to  do  so.   While  the  

States  of  Rajasthan,  Gujarat  and  Tamil  Nadu  have  

supported the concept of inter-linking of rivers, the State of  

Madhya Pradesh had stated that networking of rivers is a  

subject  falling  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Central  

Government and the Central Government should consider  

the matter.  The -

14

States of Karnataka, Bihar, Punjab, Assam and Sikkim have  

given their  approval  to  the  concept  in-principle,  but  with  

definite  reservations,  i.e.,  a  kind  of  qualified  approval,  

arguing that the matters with regard to the environmental  

and financial implications, socio-economic and international  

aspects,  such  as  inter-basin  water  transfer,  need  to  be  

properly  examined  at  the  appropriate  levels  of  the  

Government.  For example, all the rivers in Bihar originate  

from Nepal  and it  may be necessary or desirable  to take  

consent of neighbouring countries, is a matter which would  

require  consideration  of  the  appropriate  authority  in  the  

Central  Government.   According  to  the  State  of  Punjab,  

inter-linking  of  rivers  should be  started  only  from water-

surplus States to States facing water deficit.  The States of  

Assam, Sikkim and Kerala had raised their protests on the  

grounds that they should have exclusive right to use their  

water  resources  and that  such transfer  should not  affect  

any  rights  of  these  States.    The  State  of  Sikkim  was  

concerned with particular reference to tapping of the hydro  

-

15

power potential in the State and the State of Kerala entirely  

objected to long distance, inter-basin, water transfer.   

20. The  Union  of  India  filed  three  different  affidavits  

dated 25th October, 2002, 5th May, 2003 and 24th December,  

2003.  From these affidavits, the stand of the Union of India  

appears to be that networking of rivers had been considered  

with great seriousness even after the 1972 Rao Committee  

Report.   Surveys and studies were underway.   The 1980  

National  Perspective  Plan  of  the  erstwhile  Ministry  of  

Irrigation,  presently  the  Ministry  for  Water  Resources,  

envisaged inter-basin transfer from water-surplus to deficit  

areas.  It would have direct benefits, like the irrigation of 35  

million hectares (Mha), full exploitation of existing irrigation  

projects of 140 Mha, power generation of 34 million Kilowatt  

(KW);  besides  the  indirect  benefits  like  flood  control,  

navigation,  water  supply,  fisheries,  pollution  control,  

recreation facilities, employment generation, infrastructure  

and socio-economic development  etc.   With regard to the  

approvals  required,  it  is  submitted  that  the  Ministry  of  

Environment and Forests, Union of India had given some -

16

clearances,  while  refusing  the  same  in  other  cases.  The  

consent of some of the States had not been received.  The  

expected financial implication as far back as in 2002 was  

Rs.5,60,000 crores.    

21. However,  the  Union  of  India  has  submitted  that  

there  is  no  necessity  for  formation  of  a  high-powered  

committee  as  prayed for  in  the  petitions.   The  high-level  

task force is to be set up for considering the modalities of  

state-wise  consensus.   The  NWDA  was  set  up  as  

autonomous registered society under the aegis of Ministry of  

Water Resources, in New Delhi in 1992, for the purposes of  

preparation  of  FRs,  conduct  of  water-balance  and  other  

scientific studies, etc. for Peninsular Region rivers (and for  

Himalayan Region rivers also, since 1990) and is headed by  

the Union Minister of Water Resources. The Chief Ministers  

and/or the Ministers and the Secretaries as their nominees  

for Water Resources/Irrigation of the State governments are  

its members.  The pre-feasibility reports of all 30 identified  

links had been completed by the NWDA.

17

-

22. The  Union  of  India  and some  states  have  shown  

their  concerns  and  their  apprehensions  about  these  

projects,  including  questioning  the  reliability  of  water  

supply from distant sources, distribution of water given the  

existing tribunal awards and the continued availability  of  

existing water surpluses.   

23. In another affidavit, the Union of India referred to  

the  Terms  of  Reference  to  the  Task  Force  and  the  

appointment of its Members.  Action Plan I was prepared,  

which was expected to be implemented by 2016.  Out of the  

independent  links  to  be  pursued for  discussion,  the  first  

were  the  links  in  the  States  of  Gujarat,  Maharashtra,  

Chattisgarh;  secondly,  the  States  of  Karnataka,  Madhya  

Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan were to be included  

in discussions and thirdly, the States of Andhra Pradesh,  

Tamil Nadu and Orissa were to be invited for discussion.  

The Detailed Project Reports (hereafter, ‘DPR’) were expected  

to  be  completed  by December,  2006.   However,  from the  

18

record, it appears that these DPRs have not been completed  

even till today. The scheme of inter-linking of -

rivers/preparation of DPRs is stated to be under review by  

different groups and authorities.  

24. The Union of India also intended that these project  

reports should encompass water sector schemes, rainwater  

harvesting schemes etc.,  as these cannot be implemented  

independent of  the inter-linking  scheme.   The last  of  the  

affidavits  filed  on  behalf  of  the  Union  of  India  was  in  

December, 2003.  This affidavit gives details of the States,  

with which a dialogue was to be held as also the details of  

constitution of sub-committees.  The Terms of Reference of  

the Task Force included the approval of all links.  With the  

intention to arrive at a general consensus, before entering  

into agreements, the Union of India has discussed details  

with Maharashtra and Gujarat and preliminary discussion  

has  taken  place  with  the  States  of  Andhra  Pradesh,  

Chattisgarh,  Karnataka,  Orissa,  Tamil  Nadu  and  

Pondicherry.  According to the Union of India, invoking the  

19

matter internationally, at this stage, was not advisable as  

the matter was premature. The NWDA was to begin the DPR  

for the first link, i.e., the Ken-Betwa project, which itself -

was expected to take 30 months time.  In this, the DPR has  

now been prepared; however, the implementation is yet to  

begin.  We must notice that in all other links even the DPRs  

are  not  ready,  as  of  now.   The  draft  Memorandum  of  

Understanding  (hereafter,  ‘MoU’)  had  been  circulated  for  

conduct  of  DPR  of  three  more  Peninsular  links.  The  

Standing Committee of the Parliament on Water Resources,  

(hereafter,  ‘the Standing Committee’),  in its report  for  the  

year  2004-05  has  commented  that  for  the  purpose  of  

preparation of DPRs for the Ken-Betwa link and the Parbati-

Kalisindh-Chambal link projects, a sum of Rs.14 crores had  

been earmarked, out of the total Rs.35 crores allocated for  

NWDA.   However,  the  Standing  Committee  had  been  

constrained  to  observe  that,  though  the  FR  of  the  Ken-

Betwa link was completed in November, 1996, the project  

was still  at  a nascent stage.  At the time of  the report  in  

2004-05, the basic MoU between the Governments of Uttar  

20

Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, for preparation of DPR, still  

remained to be signed, on the ground that the State of Uttar  

Pradesh required more water to be allocated to it. They -

further observed that,  if  the Ministry of Water Resources,  

Government of India had set a time frame for finalization of  

issues like this, the precious time of eight years would not  

have been lost.  The matter still rests at that stage. Today,  

though DPR has been prepared for this link alone, no link  

project has reached the implementation stage.

25. The report of the Standing Committee which,  inter  

alia,  had  examined  the  river  inter-linking  proposal  was  

presented to the Parliament of India on 23rd August, 2004. It  

was  strongly  recommended  that  the  Government  should  

take firm steps and fix a definite time frame to lay down the  

guidelines for completion of FRs, preparation of DPRs and  

completion of projects so that they may be completed and  

the benefits accrued within reasonable time and costs.  It  

was the opinion of the Standing Committee that the inter-

linking  of  Himalayan and Southern  region  rivers,  if  done  

21

within a definite schedule, would save the nation from the  

devastating  ravages of  chronic  droughts and floods.   The  

recommendations of the Standing Committee deal primarily  

with two kinds of States; the States having water shortage -

and the States having surplus water.  Still, there would be a  

third category of States, which would be comprised of those  

States which have just sufficient water and therefore, do not  

fall  in  either  the  flood-affected  or  the  drought-affected  

categories of States.   The role of such States may not be  

very  project-related;  but,  their  consent/concurrence  is  

needed  for  complete  implementation  of  the  programme.  

Their  role  is  relevant  as  some  canal  projects,  linking  

different  rivers,  may  pass  through  such  States.   But  as  

already noticed, except one, no other DPR has so far been  

finalized and in fact, none put into implementation.  Thus,  

this question would remain open and has to be examined at  

the appropriate stage by the competent forum.

Projection of Status Reports : -

22

26. Different  Status  Reports  have  been  filed  in  this  

case.  The last of the Status Reports have been filed by the  

Union of India on 18th March, 2011.  It has been pointed out  

that the NWDA, which was to complete the task relating to  

preparation of FRs and DPRs of link projects, has completed  

-

208 preliminary water-balance study of basins, sub-basins  

and diversion points,  74  toposheets  and storage  capacity  

studies  of  reservoirs,  37  toposheet  studies  of  link  

alignments and 32 pre-feasibility reports of links, towards  

the implementation of inter-linking of rivers in the country.  

Based on these studies, this agency identified 30 links (16  

under the peninsular river development component and 14  

under  the  Himalayan  river  development  component)  for  

preparation of  FRs.  The process of  consensus building is  

on-going, in regard to the feasibility of implementing other  

interlinking  projects.   These  reports  have  shown  that  a  

significant  effort  and  attempts  have  been  made  and  the  

unquestionable  benefits  that  would  accrue  on  the  

23

implementation of the interlinking projects will be to benefit  

the country at large.  One aspect that needs to be noticed is  

that, till today, no minor or major project has been actually  

implemented at the ground level despite the fact that this  

case has been pending before this Court for more than ten  

years.   Only  the  DPR  of  the  Ken-Betwa  link  has  been  

prepared and its implementation is awaiting the approval of  

-

the State Governments as well  as the allocation of funds,  

even to begin the work.  This does not speak well  of  the  

desire on the part of  any of  the concerned Governments to  

implement  these  projects,  despite  the  fact  that  there  is  

unanimity  of  views  among  all  that  this  project  is  in  the  

national interest.

27. The  Committee  of  Environmentalists,  Social  

Scientists and other Experts on inter-linking of rivers, had  

met  after  the  submission  of  the  Status  Report  dated  5th  

March, 2010.  They discussed various aspects of different  

projects.   In the Himalayan region, FRs of two remaining  

24

links  were  completed,  i.e.,  the  Sarda-Yamuna  link  and  

Ghagra-Yamuna Link.  The field survey and investigation for  

Sone Dam on the southern tributaries of the Ganga link,  

was  still  in  progress.  The  Ministry  of  Environment  and  

Forests had refused permission for survey and investigation  

of the Manas-Sankosh-Tista-Ganga link, but the toposheet  

study  for  the  alternative  Jogigopa-Tista-Farakka  link  has  

been  completed.  In  the  Peninsular  region,  the  projects  

relating  to  Bedti-Varada  and  Netravati-Hemavati-Tapi  are  

awaiting -

Karnataka  Government’s  consent.   In  Netravati-Hemvati-

Tapi  link,  the  Karnataka  Government  has  refused  to  

consent  even  to  the  preparation  of  FR  until  decision  of  

related cases, pending in the Courts.   

28. In the Dhadun dam, relating to the Ken-Betwa link,  

two power houses and a link canal will be taken up in Phase  

I and the Betwa basin will be completed in Phase-II.  Upper  

Betwa Sub-Basin will receive priority completion and minor  

projects are proposed to be completed first. Phase-II will be  

25

commenced after survey and investigation.  However, this  

project is still  at the survey and planning stage and even  

comprehensive  clearances,  from  the  Uttar  Pradesh  

Government, have not been received. The State of Rajasthan  

refuses  to  consider  the  MoU  for  another  priority  link,  

Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal,  until  the  updation  of  its  

hydrology project.

29. Similarly,  there  are  other  projects  where  public  

hindrances are caused against carrying out of survey and  

investigation.  In the Par-Tapi-Narmada and Damanganga--

Pinjal links, residents have shown concern about the extent  

of land to be submerged on the construction of the proposed  

dam. In response,  the State  Governments of  Gujarat and  

Maharashtra  have  set  up  Committees  to  take  up  the  

matters with the panchayats and to commence the projects.  

30. The NWDA had also, in the course of framing of its  

policies,  proposed  intra-state  links.  Except  for  six  States  

and  four  Union  Territories,  all  other  States  and  Union  

Territories have interest  in these intra-State links.  There  

26

are eight inter-linking projects which are under review by  

different  State  authorities.   However,  the  details  of  the  

divergence between the State Governments are not clearly  

spelt out, even as of now.  

31. An additional study was undertaken by the National  

Council for Applied Economic Research (hereafter, ‘NCAER’)  

and  the  revised  final  report,  published  in  April  2008,  

assessed  the  economic  impact  of  the  rivers   interlinking  

program and suggested an investment roll out plan, i.e., a  

practical implementation schedule, for the same.  A copy of  

-

this  report  was  submitted  in  the  year  2011,  before  this  

Court.

32. As already noticed, the Task Force was constituted  

by the Central Government for interlinking of river projects  

in December 2002. It submitted its Action Plans I and II for  

implementation of the project and also finalized the terms of  

reference  for  the  purposes  of  the  DPRs.   Action  Plan  I,  

27

submitted in April 2003, envisages completion of 30 FRs by  

the authorities by December 2005.  

33. Action  Plan  II,  submitted  in  April  2004,  mainly  

envisaged the appraisal of individual projects, in respect of  

their economic viability, socio-economic and environmental  

impacts,  preparation  of  resettlement  plans  and  reaching  

speedy  consensus  among States.   The reports  have been  

submitted  to  the  Central  Government  and  are  under  

consideration.  With this completion of work, the Task Force  

had completed its object and stood dissolved.  After winding  

up of the Task Force, a Special Cell on interlinking of rivers  

was created under the Ministry of Water Resources.  -

However,  what  happened  to  the  two  Action  Plan  reports  

submitted  by  the  Task  Force  is  a  matter  left  to  the  

imagination of anyone.

34. From the above,  it  is not difficult  to visualize the  

difficulties  in  preparation,  execution,  financing  and  

consensus building, still, it is the need of the hour to carry  

28

out  these  projects  more  effectively  and  with  greater  

sensitivity.   

Economic Aspect :

35. As per the report of the Standing Committee for the  

year  2004-05,  which  was  presented  to  the  Parliament  of  

India,  the  planned  budgetary  allocation  was  made  under  

NWDA as follows :  

36. Actual allocation for 2002-03 was Rs.15.30 crores,  

the budget estimate for 2003-04 was 20 crores, the revised  

estimate  for  the  same  year  was  Rs.21.95  crores  and  for  

2004-05, the budget estimate was Rs.35 crores.

-

37. The Amicus Curiae, in his report, has noted that the  

new aggregated cost of the entire program varies between  

Rs.  4,44,331.20  crores,  at  2003-04  prices,  and  

Rs.4,34,657.13 crores, at 2003-04 prices, depending on the  

implementation  of  the  proposed  Manas-Sankosh-Tista-

Ganga link or the Jogigopa-Tista-Farakka link respectively.  

29

38. As already noticed, the NCAER had been assigned  

the  work  of  assessing  the  economic  impact  of  river  

interlinking  programmes,  which  in  turn,  suggested  an  

investment roll-out  plan for  the same.  The report  of  the  

NCAER was prepared in April, 2008.   This report considers  

various  financial  aspects  and the  impact  of  various  river  

interlinking  projects  in  India.   They  point  out  that  after  

independence,  irrigation  was  viewed  as  infrastructure  for  

agricultural  development  rather  than  as  a  commercial  

enterprise.  In 1983, the Nitin Desai Committee forwarded  

the idea of Internal Rate of Return (hereinafter referred to as  

‘IRR’),  suggesting  that  projects  should  normally  earn  a  

minimum IRR of 9 per cent.   However, for drought-prone  

and  hilly  areas  and  in  areas  with  only  75  per  cent  of  

dependable flows -

in the basin, a lower IRR of 7 per cent was recommended.  

Successive Finance Commissions also stressed on recovery  

of a certain percentage of the capital investment apart from  

working expenses.    The Eleventh Finance Commission has  

recognized  that  this  would have to be  done in a gradual  

30

manner.   Receipts  should  cover  not  only  maintenance  

expenditure but also leave some surplus as return on the  

capital invested.   

39. This NCAER report, with some significance, noticed  

that  until  2003-04,  it  was  only  in  four  years  that  the  

economy grew at more than 8 per cent per annum.  Each of  

these years coincided with very high rate of growth in the  

agricultural  sector.   In  contrast,  industry  and  services  

sectors have, at best, pulled up the Gross Domestic Product  

(GDP) growth to 7.3 per cent per annum when there was no  

significant  contribution  from  the  agricultural  sector.  The  

report clearly opines that interlinking of river projects will  

prove fruitful for the nation as a whole and would serve a  

greater  purpose  by  allowing  higher  returns  from  the  

agricultural sector for the benefit of the entire economy.  -

This would also result  in providing of varied benefits like  

control of floods, providing water to drought-prone States,  

providing  water  to  a  larger  part  of  agricultural  land  and  

even power generation.  Besides annuring to the benefit of  

31

the country, it will also help the countries like Nepal etc.,  

thus uplifting India’s international role.  Importantly, they  

also point out to a very important facet  of  interlinking of  

rivers, i.e., it may result in reduction of some diseases due  

to the supply of safe drinking water and thus serve a greater  

purpose for humanity.

40. The Bhakra dam has also been cited as an example  

in this report as having enabled the States of Punjab and  

Haryana to register faster growth as compared to the rest of  

the country.  This project provided an additional irrigated  

area  to  the  extent  of  6.8  million  hectares  over  35 years.  

Increased irrigation intensity led to increased usage of High  

Yielding  Variety  (HYV)  seeds  which  at  present  constitute  

more than 90 per cent of the area under wheat and 80 per  

cent of area under paddy cultivation.  The region uses some  

of the most advanced agricultural technologies in India.  -

NCAER,  while  depicting  the  poverty  ratio  vis-à-vis  these  

States and the other States all over India, has provided the  

following tables:

32

States Rural Urban Al

l  

Ar

ea

s

1973-74 1999-00 1973-74 1999-00 1973-74 1999-

00

Punjab 28.21 6.35 27.96 5.75 28.15 6.16

Haryana 34.23 8.27 40.18 10.00 35.36 8.74

All India 56.44 27.09 49.01 23.62 54.88 26.10

41. Thus,  they  conclude  that  the  Bhakra  Dam  was  

instrumental  in  helping  India  achieve  food  security,  in  

reducing  volatility  of  food  grain  prices  and  declining  the  

incidence of poverty in those regions.   

42. Besides pointing out the benefits of Bhakra Dam,  

the NCAER Report also states that the link canals have both  

short and long term impacts on the economy.   Short term  

impact of link canals is in the form of increased employment  

-

33

opportunities and the growth of the services sector.   In the  

medium to long term, the major  impact  of  link canals is  

through increased and assured irrigation.    Although the  

major and direct gainers from the interlinking of rivers (ILR)  

programme  will  be  agriculture  and  agriculture-dependant  

households,  the  entire  economy  will  benefit  because  of  

increased agricultural production and other benefits.

43. The Report of the NCAER has pointed out various  

benefits of rivers interlinking programme at the State and  

National  levels.    However,  when coming to  the  financial  

aspect  of  the  programme,  two  concepts  are  of  great  

relevance:  firstly,  the investment strain and secondly,  the  

scope  of  financial  investment  and  its  recoupment.  

Primarily, it is clear from the records before us that this is a  

programme/project  on  which  the  nation  and  the  States  

should  have  a  rational  but  liberal  approach  for  financial  

investment.   Referring to the financial strain, the NCAER  

Report projects two sets of investment rollout plan.  At the  

start  of  the  programme,  investment  would  be  small,  but  

34

would increase gradually peaking in the year 2011-2012.   It  

-

will  then start  falling.    Investment  rollout  from the  year  

2008-2009 to 2014-2015 will  have considerable strain on  

the  Central  Government  finances,  especially  after  the  

passage  of  Fiscal  Responsibility  and Budget  Management  

Rules  (FRBMR).   The  Government  is  now  committed  to  

reducing fiscal deficit by 0.3 percentage points of GDP every  

year and was to reduce the fiscal deficit down to 3 per cent  

of GDP by the fiscal year 2007-2008.   The FRBMR also put  

a  restriction  on  Government  borrowings.    In  each  

subsequent financial year, the limit on borrowings of 9 per  

cent  of  GDP  was  to  progressively  reduced  by  at  least  1  

percentage  point  of  GDP,  a  commitment  which  is  to  be  

adhered  to  by  all  Governments.   The  investment  plan  

prepared by the NCAER was intended to help in clearing  

doubts  in  the  minds of  the  people  and opponents  of  the  

programme that investment is not going to take place in a  

single or couple of years, but over a period of at least ten  

years.    Since  the  impact  analysis  undertaken  by  the  

35

NCAER  assumes  that  the  Interlinking  of  Rivers  (ILR)  

programme is entirely financed by the Central Government,  

-

a longer rollout plan would also help in reducing the impact  

on public finances.  

44. The NCAER has also suggested changes which are  

necessary  for  the  effective  implementation  of  the  river  

networking programme.   Inter alia, it includes the pricing of  

irrigation benefits and improvement in the quality of service.  

It  will  be  useful  to  notice  at  this  stage,  these  suggested  

changes termed as ‘Changes necessary’ which are as under:

“A revision of water rates is necessary in  the  interest  of  efficiency.   However,  it  should  go  hand  in  hand  with  improvement  in  the  quality  of  service  (Government  of  India  1992).    Specific  recommendations  were  made  by  the  Committee on Pricing of Irrigation Water  (Government of India, 1992) with regards  to pricing:

1. Water rates are a form  of  user  charges,  and  not  a  tax.    Users  of  public  irrigation  must  

36

meet  the  cost  of  the  irrigation service.

2. As irrigation is one of  the key inputs similar  to seeds and fertilizer,  its  pricing  should  be  addressed  in  the  first  step.

3. Under-pricing  of  irrigation  is  mainly  responsible for the -

4. deteriorating quality of  irrigation services.   A  revision of water rates  is  necessary  in  the  interest  of  efficiency.  However,  it  should go  hand  in  hand  with  improvement  in  the  quality of service.

5. Rates  for  non- agricultural  users  (domestic  and  industrial) should also  be revised so that full  cost is recovered.

6. Rates should be based  on  O&M  norms  and  capital  charges  (interest  and  depreciation).

37

7. Averaging  of  rates  by  region  and/or  categories  of  projects  is  desirable.  Categorisation  could  be:

 major and medium storage  system,

 major and medium projects  based  exclusively  on  barrages/diversion works,

 minor  surface  irrigation  works,

 lift irrigation canals, and

 lift  irrigation  from  groundwater.

8. Distinction of  rates in  terms of tail and head  reaches  of  a  system,  soil quality, and other  criteria  for  rate  determination  should  be  approached  with  caution  due  to  complexities  involved  with it.

9. -

10.Water rates should be  applied  on  two-part  tariff.    All  lands  in  

38

command area should  pay  a  flat  annual  fee  on a per hectare basis  for membership of the  system and a variable  fee linked to the actual  extent  of  service  (volume or  area)  used  by each member.

11.The  move  to  full- fledged  volumetric  pricing  cannot  be  introduced  immediately.   The  proposed  rationalization of water  pricing will have to be  accomplished  in  three  phases.

12.In  the  first  phase,  rationalization  and  simplification  of  the  existing  system  of  assessment  (based  on  crop-wise  irrigated  area  on  an  individual  basis)  to  a  system  of  season-specific  areas  rates should be taken  up.   The level of cost  recovery  to  be  aimed  during the first  phase  

39

should  at  least  cover  O&M costs  and 1 per  cent interest on capital  employed.    The  irrigated area under a  crop  which  spreads  over to more than one  season  should  be  charged  at  the  rates  applicable  to  different  seasons.   However, in  each  season,  distinction  should  be  made -

13.between  paddy,  sugarcane,  and  perennial crops.

14.In  the  second  phase,  the aim should be on  volumetric measure for  irrigation  water  charging.

15.In  third  phase,  the  focus  should  be  on  people  participation  for  improving  water  use  and,  thus,  productivity.

The  recommendations  of  the  Committee  on Pricing of Irrigation (also known as the  Vaidynathan  Committee  Report)  were  further studied by the Group of Officers  formed  by  the  Planning  Commission  in  

40

October, 1992.   It recommended that the  irrigation water rates should cover the full  annual O & M cost in phases in the next  five years.   These recommendations and  the  Vaidyanathan  Committee  Report  were,  in  February  1995,  sent  to  all  the  States/union territories that had started  taking action with several states revising  water rates upwards.”

To sum up the short  comings and their  analysis,  

the report states as under :

“One shortcoming of the above analysis is  that  it  has  not  considered  the  issue  of  cost  of  resettlement  of  displaced  people  due  to  ILR  Project.   A  draft  National  Rehabilitation  Policy  was  prepared  with  the  objective  of  minimizing  development  induced displacement of people by -

promoting  non-displacing  or  least  displacing  alternatives  for  meeting  development objectives.  The draft policy  is  yet  to  be  finalized  by  the  National  Advisory Council (NAC).  The NAC intends  to  finalise  a  rehabilitation  package  that  includes, inter alia, providing land for all  agricultural  families,  implementing  special  employment  guarantee  programmes,  providing  homesteads  and  dwelling  houses,  bearing  transportation  cost, providing training and other support  services, instituting a rehabilitation grant  in  order  to  compensate  loss  of  income/livelihood.  The ILR project has to  consider displacement costs on the basis  of  norms  stipulated  in  the  national  

41

Rehabilitation Policy as and when it gets  finalized.”

45. Besides  making  the  above  observations  and  

recommendations,  the  NCAER  also  suggests  that  after  

completion of the linking of rivers programme, the different  

river  links  should  be  maintained  by  separate  river  basin  

organizations,  which  would  all  be  functioning  under  the  

direct  control  of  the  Central  Water  Commission  or  such  

other appropriate central body.

46. In the summing up of its Report,  the NCAER has  

stated that water is essential for production of food, -

economic growth, health and support to environment.  Its  

main contribution to economic well-being is through its use  

of agriculture to improve food security.  Water is essential to  

increase agricultural productivity under modern technology.  

Nearly 64 per cent of the population in rural area and 4 per  

cent in urban area depends on agriculture as their principal  

source  of  income.  The  analysis  carried  out  in  the  State  

shows that the ILR programme has the potential to increase  

the growth rate of agriculture, which declined from 4.4 per  

42

cent in 1980s to 3.0 per cent in 1990s and which is still  

susceptible to the vagaries of rainfall.  In order to put our  

economy on the high growth path and improve the quality  

for life of people in the rural areas, a mixed policy of both  

increased availability of irrigation and increasing non-farm  

activity is required.

Principles Applied:

47. From  the  above  narrated  facts,  stated  

recommendations and principles, it is clear that primarily  

there is unanimity between all concerned authorities -

including  the  Centre  and  a  majority  of  the  State  

Governments,  with  the  exception  of  one  or  two,  that  

implementation of river linking will  be very beneficial.   In  

fact,  the  expert  opinions  convincingly  dispel  all  other  

impressions. There shall  be greater growth in agricultural  

and allied sectors, prosperity and stimulus to the economy  

potentially  causing  increase  in  per  capita  income,  in  

addition to the short and long term benefits likely to accrue  

by such implementation.  These would accrue if the expert  

43

recommendations  are  implemented  properly  and within  a  

timeframe.  Then there shall be hardly any financial strain  

on the  economy.   On  the  contrary,  such implementation  

would help advancement of India’s GDP and bring greater  

wealth  and prosperity  to  the  nation  as  a  whole.  Besides  

actual  benefits  accruing  to  the  common  man,  the  

Governments  also  benefit  from  the  definite  possibility  of  

saving the States from drought on the one hand and floods  

on the other.  This project, when it becomes a reality, will  

provide immeasurable benefits.  We see no reason as to why  

the Governments should not take appropriate and timely -

interest in the execution of this project, particularly when,  

in the various affidavits filed by the Central and the State  

Governments, it has been affirmed that the governments are  

very keen to implement this project with great sincerity and  

effectiveness.   

48. The States of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu have  

fully  supported  the  concept.    Madhya  Pradesh has  also  

supported  the  Scheme,  but  believes  that  it  must  be  

44

implemented  by  the  Central  Government.   The  States  of  

Karnataka,  Bihar,  Punjab  and  Sikkim  have  given  some  

qualified approvals.   Their main concern is, with regard to  

inter  basin transfer,  which must involve  quid pro quo,  as  

with any other resources  inter-linking must be from water  

surplus  to  water  deficit  States  and  in  regard  to  

environmental  and  financial  implications.   Some  of  the  

other States are not connected with these projects as they  

have no participation in inter-linking of rivers.  The State of  

Kerala has protested to some extent, to the long distance  

inter basin water transfer on the basis that the State needs  

-

water to supply their intricate network of natural and man-

made channels.   

49. It is also the case of the State of Kerala that their  

rivers  are  monsoon-fed  and  not  perennial  in  nature,  

therefore,  Kerala  experiences severe  water  scarcity  during  

summer or off-monsoon months.  

45

50. The stand taken by the respective States, as noticed  

above,  shows  that,  by  and  large,  there  is  unanimity  in  

accepting interlinking of rivers but the reservations of these  

States  can  also  not  be  ignored,  being  relatable  to  their  

particular  economic,  geographical  and  socio-economic  

needs.   These are  matters  which squarely  fall  within the  

domain of general consensus and thus, require a framework  

to  be  formulated  by  the  competent  Government  or  the  

Legislature, as the case may be, prior to its execution.

51. The National Commission for Review of the Working  

of the Constitution (NCRWC) 2002 in its Report also dealt  

with another important facet of river interlinking i.e. sharing  

of river waters.   Explaining the doctrines of river sharing, it  

-

described  Doctrine  of  Riparian  Rights,  Doctrine  of  Prior  

Appropriation,  Territorial  Integrity  Theory,  Doctrine  of  

Territorial  Sovereignty,  English  Common Law Principle  of  

Riparian Right, Doctrine of Community Interest, Doctrine of  

Equitable  Apportionment.    It  also  explained  that  when  

46

determining what a reasonable and equitable share is, the  

factors which should be taken into consideration.   In that  

behalf,  it  specifically  referred  to  agreements,  judicial  

decisions,  awards and customs that already are in place.  

Furthermore,  relative  economic  and  social  needs  of  

interested states, volume of stream and its uses, land not  

watered were other relevant considerations.   Thus, it will be  

for the expert bodies alone to examine on such issues and  

their impact on the project.  

52. Be  that  as  it  may,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  

observing that the national interest must take precedence  

over  the  interest  of  the  individual  States.     The  State  

Governments are expected to view national problems with a  

greater  objectivity,  rationality  and  spirit  of  service  to  the  

nation and -

ill-founded objections may result in greater harm, not only  

to the neighbouring States but also to the nation at large.

47

53. Now,  we  may  refer  to  certain  constitutional  

provisions  which  have  bearing  on  the  matters  in  issue  

before  us.    Under  the  constitutional  scheme,  there  is  a  

clear  demarcation  of  fields  of  operation  and  jurisdiction  

between the Legislature, Judiciary and the Executive.    The  

Legislature may save unto itself the power to make certain  

specific  legislations  not  only  governing  a  field  of  its  

legislative competence as provided in the Seventh Schedule  

of the Constitution, but also regarding a particular dispute  

referable to one of the Articles itself.    Article 262 of the  

Constitution is one of such powers.   Under this Article, the  

Parliament, by law, can provide for the adjudication of any  

dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution  

and control of water of any inter-state river or river valley.

54. Article 262(2) of the Constitution opens with a non-

obstante  expression,  that  ‘notwithstanding  anything  

contained in the Constitution, Parliament may by law -

provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other Court  

shall  exercise  jurisdiction  in  respect  of  any  dispute  or  

complaint as referred to in Article 262(1)’.    In other words,  

48

the Parliament can reserve to itself, the power to oust the  

jurisdiction of the courts, including the highest Court of the  

land,  in  relation to  a  water  dispute  as  stated under  this  

Article.    The jurisdiction of the Court will be ousted only  

with regard to the adjudication of the dispute and not all  

matters  incidental  thereto.    For  example,  the  Supreme  

Court can certainly direct the Central Government to fulfill  

its statutory obligation under Section 4 of the Act, which is  

mandatory, without deciding any water dispute between the  

States.  [See  :  Tamil  Nadu  Cauvery  Neerppasana  

Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu Sangam  

v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1316].

55. One  of  the  possible  views  taken  with  regard  to  

Article  262  is  that  the  use  of  expression  ‘may’  in  the  

Constitution  does  not  indicate  a  clear  legislative  intent,  

thus, it may be possible that Section 11 of the Act could  

refer  only  to  such  disputes  as  are  already  referred  to  a  

-

49

Tribunal and which are outside the purview of the courts.  

Once  a  specific  adjudicatory  mechanism  is  created,  that  

machinery  comes  into  operation  with  the  creation  of  the  

Tribunal  and  probably,  then  alone  will  the  Court’s  

jurisdiction be ousted.

56. The Seventh Schedule to the Constitution spells out  

different fields of legislation under the Union List (List I),  

State List (List II) and Concurrent List (List III).   Entry 56 of  

List  I  empowers  the  Union  Parliament  to  enact  laws  in  

relation  to  the  regulation  and  development  of  inter-state  

rivers and river valleys, to the extent that such regulation  

and development is declared by the Parliament, by law, to  

be expedient in the public interest.    Entry 57 deals with  

fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters.   Entry 97 is  

a residual entry, which confers those legislative fields upon  

the Union Parliament which are not specifically provided for  

under List II and/or List III.    Entry 17 relates to water,  

that  is  to  say,  water  supplies,  irrigation  and  canals,  

drainage  and  embankments,  water  storage  and  water  

power, subject to the provisions of Entry 56 of List I. -

50

Agriculture is again a State subject.  The Concurrent List  

(List III) does not contain any entry in regard to water and  

agriculture, as such.

57. Entry 42 of List III is the law relating to acquisition  

and  requisition  of  property  by  the  Union  and  the  State  

Parliaments.   The result is that, in relation to acquisition,  

the  Centre  and  the  State,  both,  have  power  to  legislate.  

Entry 20 of List III deals with economic and social planning.  

Thus, with the aid of the residual powers under Entry 97,  

List  I,  the  Union  Parliament  gets  a  very  wide  field  of  

legislation, relatable to various subjects.    

58. The  River  Boards  Act,  1956  was  enacted  by  the  

Parliament under Entry 56 of List I.   The Inter-State Water  

Disputes Act was also enacted with reference to the same  

Entry.  Whereas the mandate of the latter is to provide a  

machinery for the settlement of disputes, the former is an  

Act to establish Boards for the regulation and development  

of inter-State river basins, through advice and coordination,  

-

51

and thereby to reduce the friction amongst the concerned  

States.

59. It is  this kind of coordination which is required to  

be generated at all levels to implement the inter-linking of  

rivers  program,  as  proposed.    Huge  amounts  of  public  

money have been spent, at the planning stage itself and it  

will be travesty of good governance and the epitome of harm  

to public interest, if these projects are not carried forward  

with a sense of sincerity and a desire for its completion.

60. In a more recent judgment of this Court in the case  

of  State  of  Karnataka v.  State  of  Andhra Pradesh & Ors.  

[(2000) 9 SCC 572], a Constitution Bench of this Court took  

the view that in Section 11 of the Act, the expression ‘use,  

distribution and control of water in any river’ are the key  

words in determination of the scope of power conferred on a  

Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of the Act.   If a matter  

fell outside the scope of these three crucial words, the power  

of  Section  11 in ousting the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  in  

respect of any water dispute, which is otherwise to be -

52

referred  to  Tribunal,  would  not  have  any  manner  of  

application.   The  test  of  maintainability  of  a  legal  action  

initiated by a State in a Court would thus be, whether the  

issues  raised  therein  are  referable  to  a  Tribunal  for  

adjudication of the manner of use, distribution and control  

of water.

61. Further,  this  Court  while  declining  to  issue  a  

mandamus directing  the  States  of  Karnataka,  Andhra  

Pradesh and Maharashtra to constitute a common Tribunal,  

held:

“168.  ……It  is  settled  law that  such a  direction  cannot  possibly  be  granted  so  as to compel  an authority to exercise  a  power which has a substantial element of  discretion. In any event the mandamus to  exercise  a  power  which  is  legislative  in  character cannot be issued and I am in  full agreement with the submission of Mr.  Solicitor General on this score as well. At  best  it  would  only  be  an  issue  of  good  governance  but that  by itself  would not  mean  and  imply  that  the  Union  Government has executive power even to  force a settlement upon the State.”

-

53

62. The  above  stated  principles  clearly  show  that  a  

greater  element  of  mutuality  and  consensus  needs  to  be  

built between the States and the Centre on the one hand,  

and the States inter se on the other.   It will be very difficult  

for  the  Courts  to  undertake  such an exercise  within  the  

limited scope of its power of judicial review and even on the  

basis of expanded principles of Public Interest Litigation.  A  

Public Interest Litigation before this Court has to fall within  

the  contours  of  constitutional  law,  as  no  jurisdiction  is  

wider  than  this  Court’s  constitutional  jurisdiction  under  

Article 32 of the Constitution.  The Court can hardly take  

unto itself tasks of making of a policy decision or planning  

for  the  country  or  determining  economic  factors  or  other  

crucial aspects like need for acquisition and construction of  

river linking channels under that program.  The Court is not  

equipped to take such expert decisions and they essentially  

should  be  left  for  the  Central  Government  and  the  

concerned  State.   Such  an  attempt  by  the  Court  may  

amount to the Court sitting in judgment over the opinions of  

the experts in the respective fields, without any tools and -

54

expertise at its disposal.  The requirements in the present  

case have different dimensions.  The planning, acquisition,  

financing, pricing, civil  construction, environmental issues  

involved  are  policy  decisions  affecting  the  legislative  

competence and would squarely fall  in the domain of the  

Government of States and Centre.  We certainly should not  

be understood to even imply that the proposed projects of  

inter-linking of rivers should not be completed.     

63. We would recommend, with all the judicial authority  

at  our  command,  that  these  projects  are  in  the  national  

interest, as is the unanimous view of all experts, most State  

Governments  and  particularly,  the  Central  Government.  

But  this  Court  may  not  be  a  very  appropriate  forum for  

planning and implementation of such a programme having  

wide national dimensions and ramifications.  It will not only  

be desirable,  but also inevitable  that an appropriate body  

should  be  created  to  plan,  construct  and implement  this  

inter linking of rivers program for the benefit of the nation  

as a whole.

55

-

64. Realizing our limitations, we would finally dispose of  

this Public Interest Litigation with the following directions:-

(I) We  direct  the  Union  of  India  and  particularly  the  

Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India,  to  

forthwith constitute a Committee to be called a ‘Special  

Committee  for  Inter-linking  of  Rivers’  (hereinafter  

referred  as  ‘the  Committee’)  of  which,  the  following  

shall be the Members:-

(a) The Hon’ble Minister for Water Resources.

(b) Secretary, Ministry for Water Resources.

(c) Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests.

(d) Chairman, Central Water Commission.

(e)  Member-Secretary,  National  Water  Development  

Authority.

(f)  Four experts to be nominated, one each from the  

following Ministries/bodies:

(i)  One  Expert  from  the  Ministry  of  Water  

Resources

(ii) One Expert  from the Ministry of Finance

56

(iii) One Expert from the Planning Commission  

-

(iv) One Expert from the Ministry of Environment  

& Forests.

(g) Minister for Water and/or Irrigation from each of  

the  concurring  States,  with  the  Principal  

Secretary  of  the  concerned  Department  of  the  

same State.

(h) The Chief Secretary or his nominee not below the  

rank of the Principal Secretary of the concerned  

Department in case of  any other State  involved  

directly  or  indirectly  in  the  water  linking  river  

project.

(i) Two social activists to be nominated by each of  

the concerned Ministries.

(j) Mr. Ranjit Kumar (Amicus Curiae).

(II) The  Committee  shall  meet,  at  least,  once  in  two  

months and shall  maintain records of  its discussion  

and the Minutes.

57

(III)  In  the  absence  of  any  person  from  such  meeting,  

irrespective of his/her status, the meeting shall not be  

adjourned.  If the Hon’ble Minister for Water Resources  

-

is not available, the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources,  

Government of India, shall preside over the Meeting.

(IV)  The  Committee  would  be  entitled  to  constitute  such  

sub-committees,  as  it  may  deem  necessary  for  the  

purposes of carrying on the objects of the Inter-Linking  

of River Program, on such terms and conditions as it  

may deem proper.

(V) The Committee shall submit a bi-annual report to the  

Cabinet of the Government of India placing before it  

the  status-cum-progress  report  as  well  as  all  the  

decisions required to be taken in relation to all matters  

communicated therewith.  The Cabinet shall take all  

final and appropriate decisions, in the interest of the  

countries as expeditiously as possible and preferably  

within thirty days from the date the matters are first  

placed before it for consideration.

58

(VI)  All the reports of the expert bodies as well as the status  

reports filed before this Court during the pendency of  

this petition, shall be placed before the Committee for  

-

its  consideration.  Upon due analysis of  the Reports  and  

expert opinions, the Committee shall prepare its plans  

for implementation of the project.

(VII)  The  plans  so  prepared  shall  have  different  phases,  

directly  relatable  to  the  planning,  implementation,  

construction, execution and completion of the project.

(VIII) We are informed that large sums have been spent on  

preparation of initial and detailed project reports of the  

project  ‘Ken-Betwa Project’.   The DPR is  now ready.  

The States of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and  

also the Central  Government had already given their  

approval and consent.  The clarifications sought will be  

discussed  by  the  Committee.   We  would  direct  the  

Committee to take up this project for implementation  

at the first instance itself.  

59

(IX) Keeping  in  view  the  expert  reports,  we  have  no  

hesitation  in  observing  and  directing  that  time  is  a  

very  material  factor  in  the  effective  execution of  the  

Interlinking of Rivers project.   As pointed out in the  

Report by NCAER and by the Standing Committee, the  

-

delay has adversely affected the financial benefits that could  

have accrued to the concerned parties and the people  

at large and is in fact now putting a financial strain on  

all concerned.

(X) It is directed that the Committee shall take firm steps  

and fix a definite timeframe to lay down the guidelines  

for  completion  of  feasibility  reports  or  other  reports  

and shall ensure the completion of projects so that the  

benefits accrue within reasonable time and cost.

(XI) At  the  initial  stages,  this  program  may  not  involve  

those  States which have sufficient water and are not  

substantially  involved  in  any  inter-linking  of  river  

programme and the projects can be completed without  

their effective participation.  

60

(XII) However,  the  Committee  may  involve  any  State  for  

effective  completion  of  the  programme  at  any  

subsequent stage.

(XIII) There  are  projects  where  the  paper  work  has  been  

going for the last ten years and at substantial cost to  

the public exchequer.  Therefore, we direct the Central  

-

and the State Governments to participate  in the program  

and render all financial, administrative and executive  

help to complete these projects more effectively.

(XIV) It  is  evident  from  the  record  that  the  Reports  

submitted  by  the  Task  Force  have  not  been  acted  

upon.  Thus, the entire effort put in by the Task Force  

has  practically  been  of  no  use  to  the  concerned  

governments, much less the public.   The Task Force  

has now been wound up.   Let the reports of the Task  

Force also be placed before the Committee which shall,  

without  fail,  take  due  note  of  the  suggestions made  

therein and take decisions as to how the same are to  

be implemented for the benefit of the public at large.

61

(XV) The Committee constituted under this order shall be  

responsible for carrying out the inter-linking program.  

Its  decisions  shall  take  precedence  over  all  

administrative bodies created under the orders of this  

Court or otherwise.

-

(XVI) We grant liberty to the learned  Amicus Curiae to file  

contempt petition in this Court, in the event of default  

or non-compliance of the directions contained in this  

order.

65. We  would  fail  in  our  duty  if  we  do  not  place  on  

record the appreciation for the valuable and able assistance  

rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae and all other senior  

counsel and assisting counsel appearing in the present PIL.

66. We  not  only  express  a  pious  hope  of  speedy  

implementation but also do hereby issue a  mandamus to  

the Central and the State Governments concerned to comply  

with  the  directions contained  in  this  judgment  effectively  

and expeditiously and without default. This is a matter of  

national benefit and progress.  We see no reason why any  

62

State should lag behind in contributing its bit to bring the  

Inter-linking River Program to a success,  thus saving the  

people  living  in  drought-prone  zones  from  hunger  and  

people  living  in  flood-prone  areas  from  the  destruction  

caused by floods.

-

67. With  the  observations  and  directions  recorded  

supra,  Writ  Petition  (Civil)  No.512  of  2002,  Writ  Petition  

(Civil) No.668 of 2002 and all the applications filed in both  

these writ petitions are hereby finally disposed of with no  

order as to costs.

  .............................CJI.

     [S.H. Kapadia]

  …………………………….,J.   [A.K. Patnaik]

…………………………….,J.  [Swatanter Kumar]

New Delhi; February 27, 2012

63

64