Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2957 OF 2013

KACHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS. ..APPELLANTS  

VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.     …RESPONDENTS  

JUDGMENT  

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.

Appellant  no.  1,  Kachchh  Jal  Sankat  Nivaran  

Samiti, claims to be a non-political organization  

established with the object amongst others to work  

to alleviate the District of Kutch of its perennial  

water  scarcity  and  to  mitigate  the  resultant  

problems  faced  by  the  inhabitants  and  the  

residents.  Other appellants have also interest in  

the cause espoused by appellant no. 1.  Aggrieved

Page 2

by  the  meager  allocation  of  water  from  Sardar  

Sarovar  Project  to  the  District  of  Kutch  they  

approached  the  Gujarat  High  Court  in  a  public  

interest litigation inter alia praying for issuance  

of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other  

appropriate writ, order or direction directing the  

respondent,  the  State  of  Gujarat  and  its  

functionaries  to allocate  more  water  from Sardar  

Sarovar Project to the District of Kutch.  By the  

impugned order the prayer made by the appellants  

has been rejected and against the dismissal of the  

writ petition they are before us with the leave of  

the Court.

Water is essential for survival of universe.  

It is not available for human use in plenty and  

hence disputes existed between various States for  

its sharing.  In the year 1969, the Government of  

India in exercise of its power under Section 4 of  

the  Inter-State  Water  Disputes  Act,  1956  

constituted  Narmada  Water  Disputes  Tribunal  

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Tribunal”),  to  

2

Page 3

decide the Inter-State dispute of sharing of water  

of river Narmada.  The Tribunal handed over its  

award on 16th of August, 1978.  As provided under  

Section 5(3) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act,  

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the Union  

of India and the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh,  

Maharashtra and Rajasthan made references.  Those  

references were heard by the Tribunal which gave  

its final award on 7th of December, 1979.  It was  

published  on  12th of  December,  1979  in  the  

Extraordinary Gazette of the Government of India.  

While giving the award, the Tribunal considered the  

issue pertaining to allocation of water, height of  

the dam, hydrology and other related issues.  As  

regards the issue of allocation of Narmada water at  

Sardar  Sarovar  Dam  site,  the  Tribunal  allocated  

9.00 Million Acre Feet (for short “MAF”) to the  

State of Gujarat whereas 18.25 MAF, 0.50 MAF and  

0.25 MAF were allocated to the States of Madhya  

Pradesh,  Rajasthan  and  Maharashtra  respectively.  

It  is  relevant  here  to  state  that  the  State  of  

Gujarat laid claim for 20.73 MAF of water out of  

3

Page 4

the total demand of 22.02 MAF of water before the  

Tribunal,  which  included  6.57  MAF  water  for  

reclaiming and/or  irrigating  12.17  lakh acres of  

land  of  the  District  of  Kutch  under  Zone  XI-C,  

Banni and Ranns.  However, the claim of the State  

of Gujarat was turned down by the Tribunal on its  

finding that these areas are barren and sparsely  

populated.  Its soil is highly saline having very  

low  permeability  and  vertical  permeability  of  

nearly nil.  It has high ground water table and  

impervious  layer  near  the  ground  water  surface,  

high evaporation and low rainfall.  In this way the  

Tribunal rejected the claim of State of Gujarat for  

irrigating 11 lakh acres of land in Banni and Ranns  

areas and as stated, allocated 9.00 MAF of water.  

How the water allocated to each of the States shall  

be utilised was left to the choice of the State  

Government.  As it was not a case of plenty, the  

State Government of Gujarat out of 9.00 MAF water,  

allocated 7.94 MAF water for irrigation and 1.06  

MAF  water  for  domestic  and  industrial  use  and  

because  of  the  limited  water  allocation,  the  

4

Page 5

proportionate  water  requirement  for  Kutch  region  

was worked out as 0.15 MAF.   

The  appellants  are  aggrieved  by  aforesaid  

meager allocation of water and, according to them,  

the State Government has not distributed the water  

keeping  in  mind  the  Directive  Principles  of  the  

State Policy as enshrined under Article 39(b) of  

the Constitution of India which inter alia obliges  

the State to make the policy in such a way that the  

material  resources  of  the  community  are  so  

distributed as best to subserve the common good.  

Appellant  further  contended  that  by  meager  

allocation of water, the State Government also did  

not  carry  out  its  obligation  as  mandated  under  

Article  38(2)  of  the  Constitution  which  casts  a  

duty on it to strive to minimise the inequalities  

in  income  and  make  an  endeavour  to  eliminate  

inequalities  in  the  status,  facilities  and  

opportunity  amongst  individuals  and  groups  of  

people residing in different areas of the State.  

The plea of the State Government is that out of the  

5

Page 6

limited water allocated to it by the Tribunal, it  

had made the best use of that.  It has also been  

pointed out that the allocation complained of is  

not static and shall vary from time to time and the  

quantity of water allocated for Kutch District may  

increase.   It  has  also  been  averred  that  while  

making  allocation  to  Kutch  District,  the  State  

Government has kept in view the interest of all  

concerned  and  also  the  factors  relevant  for  the  

purpose.   According  to  the  respondent-State  

Government, it laid a claim for 20.73 MAF of water  

out of the total demand of 22.02 MAF water before  

the Tribunal which included 6.57 MAF for Kutch, but  

only 9.00 MAF water was allocated and the award of  

the Tribunal having been approved by the Supreme  

Court, the State Government has to distribute the  

limited water allocated to it.  It has also been  

pointed  out  that  the  allocation  made  for  the  

District  of  Kutch  has  been  increased  in  later  

years.   

6

Page 7

The High Court has analysed in detail the pleas  

raised  by  the  parties  and  declined  to  interfere  

with the same, inter alia, on the grounds that the  

decision involved  balance  of  competing  claims of  

the natural resources and there is no judicially  

manageable standard for adjudication for allocation  

of water in favour of any region within the State.  

While doing so, the High Court observed as follows:

“In  our  opinion,  the  above  observations  would  answer  the  submissions  advanced  by  the  learned  counsel  of  the petitioners.   We  are  not here to weigh the pros and cons of  the policy or scrutinize it and test  the  degree  of  its  beneficial  or  equitable disposition for the purpose  of varying, modifying or annulling it,  unless it is arbitrary or violative of  any  constitutional,  statutory  or  any  other provision of law.  Needless to  say  that  the  petitioners  have  not  challenged  these  decisions  on  the  ground that as they are arbitrary nor  have they pointed  out that  they  are  unconstitutional  or  violative  of  statutory or any other provisions of  law.  The Government, in the instant  case, decided to accept the award of  the NWDT which is based on the expert  opinion and now we are asked to test  the utility, beneficial effect etc. of  the  policy  on  the  basis  of  the  affidavit filed before us……”

7

Page 8

The High Court further observed that the issue  

raised  requires  determination  of  the  choice  of  

priorities  and  it  is  not  subject  to  judicial  

review.   The  High  Court,  in  this  connection,  

observed as follows:

“29.  Apart  from  that,  determining  the  choice  of  priorities  and  formulating perspective thereof is a  matter  of  policy  and  it  is  not  within our domain to interfere with  the  sole  question  of  efficacy  or  otherwise of such policy unless the  same is “vitiated” of in violation  of any provisions or the statute or  Constitution of India.”

Mr.  Altaf  Ahmed,  Senior  Counsel  appears  on  

behalf of the appellants and takes a stand that the  

appellants do not seek determination of appropriate  

quantity of water for the District of Kutch but the  

plea is that the policy of distribution is based on  

irrelevant consideration and, therefore, subject to  

judicial  review.   According  to  him,  it  lacks  

transparency  and  exhibits  extreme  prejudice  and  

discrimination against Kutch District.  According  

8

Page 9

to  him,  while  making  the  policy,  the  relevant  

factors were ignored and irrelevant and extraneous  

factors have been taken into account.  He points  

out that the State of Gujarat while claiming large  

share  of  water  from  river  Narmada  before  the  

Tribunal  relied  heavily  upon  the  need  of  Kutch  

District to get more water but after the award, did  

not stick to its stand after the allocation was  

made by the Tribunal.  He has brought to our notice  

the comparative data regarding allocation of water  

to the various districts and points out that the  

same indicates discriminatory allocation of water  

to the Kutch area.  Mr. Ahmed draws our attention  

to Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India and  

submits  that  the  State  while  dealing  with  the  

distribution  of  water  did  not  respect  the  

constitutional  philosophy  that  the  State  shall  

distribute  the  material  resources  as  best  to  

subserve “common good”.  It has also been contended  

that  the  natural  resources  are  held  by  the  

Government  as  trustee  for  the  benefit  of  the  

citizens and,  therefore, the  State  Government is  

9

Page 10

required to manage and utilize them in the best  

interest  of  the  society.   While  making  

distribution,  according  to  Mr.  Ahmed,  the  State  

Government totally lost sight of Article 38(2) of  

the  Constitution which stipulates  that  the  State  

shall  endeavor  to  minimize  inequalities  in  the  

facilities and opportunities amongst people.

On  account  of  all  these  infirmities,  the  

impugned policy deserves to be looked into by this  

Court in exercise of its power of judicial review,  

contends  Mr.Ahmed.  Reliance  has  been  placed  in  

support of aforementioned contention to a decision  

of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Tata  Cellular  vs.  

Union of India (1994)6 SCC 651. Our attention has  

been  drawn  to  the  following  passage  from  the  

said judgment:

“70. It cannot be denied that the  principles of judicial review would  apply to the exercise of contractual  powers by Government bodies in order  to  prevent  arbitrariness  or  favouritism.   However,  it  must  be  clearly  stated  that  there  are  

10

Page 11

inherent limitations in exercise of  that  power  of  judicial  review.  Government  is  the  guardian  of  the  finances  of  the  State.   It  is  expected  to  protect  the  financial  interest of the State.  The right to  refuse  the  lowest  or  any  other  tender  is  always  available  to  the  Government.   But,  the  principles  laid  down  in  Article  14  of  the  Constitution have to be kept in view  while  accepting  or  refusing  a  tender.  There can be no question of  infringement  of  Article  14  if  the  Government  tries  to  get  the  best  person or the best quotation.  The  right to choose cannot be considered  to  be  an  arbitrary  power.   Of  course,  if  the  said  power  is  exercised for any collateral purpose  the exercise of that power will be  struck down”  

Mr. Shyam Diwan, Senior Counsel representing  

the  State  of  Gujarat  states  that  the  issue  

regarding allocation of water to the districts of  

Gujarat  is  a  matter  of  policy  and  the  scope  of  

judicial  review  in  this  regard  is  narrow.  

According to him, the policy has been framed after  

consulting technical experts in the best interest  

of the people and, therefore, does not call for any  

11

Page 12

interference by this Court in exercise of its power  

of judicial review.   

We have given our most anxious consideration  

to the rival submissions and we find substance in  

the submission of Mr. Diwan. We are conscious of  

the fact that there is wide separation of powers  

between  the  different  limbs  of  the  State  and,  

therefore, it is expected of this Court to exercise  

judicial  restraint  and  not  encroach  upon  the  

executive  or  legislative  domain.  What  the  

appellants in substance are asking this Court to do  

is to conduct a comparative study and hold that the  

policy of distribution of water is bad.  We are  

afraid, we do not have the expertise or wisdom to  

analyse  the  same.  It  entails  intricate  economic  

choices and though this Court tends to believe that  

it  is  expert  of  experts  but  this  principle  has  

inherent limitation. True it is that the court is  

entitled  to  analyse  the  legal  validity  of  the  

different means of distribution but it cannot and  

will not term a particular policy as fairer than  

12

Page 13

the other.   We are of the opinion that the matters  

affecting  the  policy  and  requiring  technical  

expertise be better left to the decision of those  

who  are  entrusted  and  qualified  to  address  the  

same.  This Court shall step in only when it finds  

that  the  policy  is  inconsistent  with  the  

Constitutional laws or arbitrary or irrational.     

Candidly  speaking,  we  do  not  have  the  

expertise to lay down policy for distribution of  

water within the State. It involves collection of  

various data which is variable and many a times  

policy formulated will have political overtones. It  

may  require  a  political  decision  with  which  the  

Court  has  no  concern  so  long  it  is  within  the  

Constitutional limits. Even if we assume that this  

Court has the expertise, it will not encroach upon  

the  field  earmarked  for  the  executive.  If  the  

policy of the Government, in the opinion of the  

sovereign,  is  unreasonable,  the  remedy  is  to  

disapprove the same during election. In respect of  

policy, the Court has very limited jurisdiction. A  

13

Page 14

dispute, in our opinion, shall not be appropriate  

for  adjudication  by  this  Court  when  it  involves  

multiple  variable  and  interlocking  factors,  

decision on each of which has bearing on others.  

While disposing of an interlocutory application in  

this very appeal by order dated 22nd of July, 2011,  

this Court observed as follows:

“We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  prayer  for  allocation  of  adequate  water in Kuchchh district is not one  which can be a matter of judicial  review.   It  is  for  the  executive  authorities  to  look  into  this  matter.  As held by this Court in  Divisional  Manager,  Aravali  Golf  Club & Anr. vs. Chander Hass & Anr.  (2008)  1  SCC  683,  there  must  be  judicial restraint in such matters.”

We are in respectful agreement with the view  

aforesaid.

The State of Gujarat emphasized the need of  

more water for the District of Kutch before the  

Tribunal and projected all those pleas which have  

been projected before us by the appellants but the  

14

Page 15

same did not find favour with the Tribunal and the  

Tribunal allocated 9.00 MAF water instead of 22.02  

MAF water claimed before the Tribunal.  Therefore,  

they were left with little amount of water. In the  

face of it, less amount of water than what has  

been claimed by the appellants was allocated for  

the District of Kutch.  The allocation of water is  

a matter of policy and how much water is to be  

released  from  the  canal  and  for  that  matter  a  

particular area or how much water is to be left  

with other regions, in our opinion, are matters  

which require delicate balancing and consideration  

of complex social and economic consideration.  In  

our  view,  there  being  no  judicially  manageable  

standards, it shall be appropriate to leave it to  

be  decided  by  the  experts  of  the  irrigation  

management system and water resources management.  

The plea of the appellants that those factors  

which  were  projected  by  the  State  Government  

15

Page 16

itself before the Tribunal are not being adhered  

to and its action is arbitrary, does not appeal to  

us.  The State Government also projected the need  

of Kutch area before the Tribunal but the same did  

not  appeal  to  it.   In  fact,  the  award  of  the  

Tribunal  has  got  the  seal  of  approval  of  this  

Court and the State Government having accepted the  

decision  of  the  Tribunal,  its  action  cannot  be  

termed as arbitrary only on the ground that all  

those  factors  were  not  considered  while  making  

allocation  to  the  district.   As  regards  the  

complaint  of  the  appellants  that  while  making  

distribution, the State Government did not take  

into account the policy underlying Article 39(b)  

of  the  Constitution,  we  must  observe  that  the  

distribution  of  material  resources  is  to  be  

effected  in  the  manner  to  subserve  the  “common  

good” and this expression is not to be confined  

for  the  Kutch  District  only  but  to  the  other  

regions of the State also.

16

Page 17

The  complaint  of  the  appellants  of  non-

adherence to the mandate of Article 38(2) of the  

Constitution is  also misconceived.  The  State, in  

our  opinion,  is  to  strive  to  minimize  the  

inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate  

inequalities  in  status,  facilities  and  

opportunities not only amongst individuals but also  

amongst group of people residing in different parts  

or engaged in different vocations. But this does  

not  mean  that  for  achieving  that  the  State  

Government  has  to  apply  it  on  the  basis  of  the  

number of people residing in different parts only.  

Other factors just cannot be forgotten.

We are in total agreement with the conclusion  

and  reasoning  given  by  the  High  Court  and  we  

reiterate that there being no judicially manageable  

standards for allocation of water, any interference  

by this Court would mean interference with the day-

to-day functioning of the State Government. In view  

17

Page 18

of separation of powers, this Court cannot charter  

the said path.

 In the result, we do not find any merit in  

this  appeal  which  is  dismissed  accordingly  but  

without any order as to costs.

………………………………………………………………J   (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

………..……….………………………………..J                  (V.GOPALA GOWDA)

NEW DELHI, JULY 15, 2013.  

18

Page 19

19