Case Note & Summary
In this public interest litigation originating from Writ Petition (C) No. 537 of 1992, the Supreme Court of India was moved by Commodore S.D. Sinha to secure drinking water for the residents of Delhi from the Yamuna river. The Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking and Commodore Sinha subsequently filed contempt petitions alleging willful violation of the Court's order dated 31.03.1995. The dispute involved the States of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and the National Capital Territory of Delhi, signatories to a Memorandum of Understanding on allocation of surface flow of Yamuna. The procedural background showed that after the writ petition was filed, the Court suggested assistance of a senior lawyer through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, and Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal appeared. He argued citing American decisions and writings that drinking is the most beneficial use of water, paramount and not subservient to irrigation; and that Article 262 of the Constitution read with the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 did not exclude the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to entertain the grievance. The State of Haryana, through Advocate General H.L. Sibal, initially objected but alternatively urged the Court to act as per the MOU signed on 12.09.1994. The Court found merit in the submission and, after noting difficulty in constituting the Upper Yamuna River Board, passed an interim order on 31.03.1995 directing release of 0.076 B.C.M. water from Tajewala Head for Delhi's consumption from March to June 1995, with special directions to Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The contempt petitions alleged that no water was released pursuant to that order. During the contempt proceedings, the contemners admitted that no water was released, and Haryana's stand was that under the MOU Delhi was not to get any extra water beyond what it was receiving before 31.03.1995. The Court observed that if that stand were correct, the State had misled the Court on 31.03.1995, causing deflection in the course of administration of justice. The Court strongly disapproved the volte-face and observed that it would have found the concerned persons guilty of contempt. However, because the Advocate General assured that Haryana would see that Delhi gets as much water as it was receiving through Yamuna if directed, and the petitioners were not keen to pursue contempt, the Court refrained from using contempt jurisdiction. The Court then issued a binding direction that Delhi shall continue to get as much water for domestic use from Haryana through the Yamuna as can be consumed and filled in the Wazirabad and Hyderpur reservoirs and treatment plants, and that both reservoirs shall remain full to their capacity. Haryana and its officers were directed not to obstruct the supply. The order was made independent of the MOU or any other proceedings, and was to bind not only the parties but also the Upper Yamuna River Board. The decision affirmed the principle that drinking water is a paramount need and that upper riparian states cannot deny lower riparian states water for drinking purposes. The Court also indicated that its jurisdiction to entertain such a public interest petition was not excluded by Article 262 read with the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, given the paramount nature of the right to drinking water.
Headnote
A) Water Law - Riparian Rights and Drinking Water Paramountcy - Drinking water is the most beneficial use and cannot be subservient to irrigation; upper riparian states cannot deny lower riparian residents water for drinking - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 52 - The court observed that water is a gift of nature and drinking is the primary use. Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal cited American decisions to argue that domestic use prevails over irrigation. Held that the right to use of water for domestic purpose prevails over other needs (Paras 1-4). B) Constitutional Law - Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in Inter-State Water Disputes - Article 262 read with Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not exclude Supreme Court jurisdiction to entertain grievance regarding drinking water - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 262; Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 - The contention was that the court's jurisdiction was not excluded because drinking water need is paramount. The court found plausibility in the contention and was inclined to unfold new jurisprudential arena despite objection by State of Haryana. Held that the court could entertain the grievance (Paras 3-4). C) Water Law - Interim Allocation under Memorandum of Understanding - Upon execution of MOU dated September 12, 1994 among U.P., Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and NCT Delhi, the Upper Yamuna River Board was legally constituted and directions were issued for release of 0.076 B.C.M. to Delhi from Tajewala Head from April 6, 1995 as interim measure - Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 - The court directed all parties to ensure sufficient water release, and special directions to Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Held that the MOU became executable under law once the Board was legally constituted (Para 5). D) Contempt of Court - Misleading Court and Violation of Order - State's stand that Delhi was not entitled to extra water under MOU contradicted earlier position and misled the court; court refrained from contempt jurisdiction upon assurance and issued directions for continuous water supply to Delhi - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 262 - The contemners admitted no water was released pursuant to the order dated March 31, 1995. The court strongly disapproved the volte-face but closed the proceeding after Advocate General assured supply. Held that Delhi shall continue to receive water to keep Wazirabad and Hyderpur reservoirs full, and Haryana shall not obstruct supply; order binds parties and Upper Jamuna River Board (Paras 6-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether drinking water is the paramount use of water entitling lower riparian residents to water for domestic purposes; whether Article 262 of the Constitution read with the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 excludes Supreme Court jurisdiction; whether the State of Haryana misled the Court and whether contempt jurisdiction should be exercised for violation of the order dated 31.03.1995.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court refrained from exercising contempt jurisdiction in view of the assurance given by the Advocate General of Haryana that Haryana would see that Delhi gets as much water as it was receiving through Jamuna if directed. The Court directed that Delhi shall continue to get as much water for domestic use from Haryana through river Jamuna as can be consumed and filled in the Wazirabad and Hyderpur water reservoirs and treatment plants; both reservoirs shall remain full to capacity from water supplied by Haryana. The State of Haryana through all its officers was directed not to obstruct the supply of water to Delhi at any time. This order was not dependent on the MOU or any other proceedings under any other law between the parties. The proceeding was closed by requiring Haryana to make available the aforesaid quantity of water to Delhi throughout the year, with a warning that any violation would be viewed seriously. The order binds not only the parties but also the Upper Jamuna River Board.
Law Points
- Drinking water is the most beneficial and paramount use of water
- right to domestic use prevails over irrigation
- upper riparian State cannot deny lower riparian State water for drinking
- Supreme Court jurisdiction not excluded by Article 262 read with Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956 for drinking water grievance
- assurance given to court can lead to closure of contempt proceedings with binding directions
