The Supreme Court today upheld the maintainability of appeals filed by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala against the 2007 award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT) on sharing of river water saying it has the "jurisdiction to decide the parameters, scope, authority and jurisdiction of the tribunal".
A three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said the exposition of the principles of law, the intendment of the legislature and the ultimate purpose and effect of the provision compel it to "repel" the submissions raised on behalf of the Union of India that Section 6(2) bars the jurisdiction conferred on this court under Article 136.
The bench also comprising Justices Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar said that from the provisions it is clear as crystal that Parliament did not intend to create any kind of embargo on the jurisdiction of this court and the provision section 6 (2) was inserted to give the binding effect to the award passed by the tribunal.
"The founding fathers had not conferred the power on this court to entertain an original suit or complaint and that is luminescent from the language employed in Article 131 of the Constitution and from the series of pronouncements of this court," the bench said, adding that the words "same force as on order or decision" cannot be treated as a decree for the purpose for excluding the jurisdiction of the apex court.
Elaborating, the court said that the award of tribunal cannot be a "decree as if this court has adjudicated the matter and decree is passed".
"Parliament has intended that the same (tribunal's award) shall be executed or abided as if it is a decree of this court. It is to be borne in mind that a provision should not be interpreted to give a different colour which has a technical design rather than serving the object of the legislation," it said.
Referring to an earlier Constitution bench judgement of apex court, the bench said that it was held that this court cannot take cognisance of an original dispute or complaint.
"The Constitution bench analysing the scheme of the 1956 Act has opined that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to grant interim relief. It has also been categorically ruled that this Court cannot take cognizance of original dispute," it said.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
