Supreme Court Orders Centre To Constitute Water Disputes Tribunal Over Pennaiyar River Conflict

“Once Negotiations Fail, Tribunal Is No Longer Discretionary—It Becomes a Constitutional Mandate”, In a landmark judgment Supreme Court of India invoked its original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution and directed the Central Government to constitute an Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal within one month to adjudicate the long-standing Pennaiyar river dispute between the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice N. V. Anjaria declared that the negotiation process had irrevocably failed, making it “imperative for the Union of India to constitute a Tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.”

The Court ruled:

“We have no hesitation in recording that the negotiation process has not yielded any mutually acceptable outcome… It becomes its [the Centre’s] obligation to constitute a Tribunal and refer the dispute to it as stipulated under Section 4 of the Act.” [Paras 7 & 9]

The Original Suit No. 1 of 2018, filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, alleged that Karnataka, an upper riparian State, had undertaken unilateral construction of check dams and diversion structures across the Pennaiyar river and its tributaries, in violation of an 1892 agreement and without consent, thereby impeding natural flows to Tamil Nadu and harming agricultural livelihoods across five of its districts.

“1892 Agreement May Be Historic, But The Dispute It Represents Is Real And Current”: Court Leaves Interpretation Open For Tribunal

Tamil Nadu's claim was partly rooted in the 1892 agreement between the erstwhile Madras and Mysore States, which, according to the plaintiff, mandated prior consent of the lower riparian State before any diversionary works. Karnataka, in response, argued that the agreement was “political” in nature, ceased to have any binding legal force after independence, and required no compliance.

The Court consciously refrained from delving into the enforceability of the 1892 agreement, stating:

“All questions, including those relating to the reliefs that may be available to the parties, are kept open for consideration by the Tribunal.” [Para 13]

“Tribunal Must Be Constituted When Negotiations Collapse—The Word ‘Shall’ Leaves No Discretion”: SC Reaffirms Ratio from T.N. Cauvery Farmers’ Case

In its reasoning, the Court leaned heavily on the precedent set in T.N. Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappa Sangam v. Union of India [(1990) 3 SCC 440], reiterating that:

“Once we come to the conclusion that a stage has reached when the Central Government must be held to be of the opinion that the water dispute can no longer be settled by negotiation, it thus becomes its obligation to constitute a Tribunal.” [Para 9]

The use of “shall” in Section 4 of the 1956 Act was interpreted as imposing a mandatory duty on the Central Government. The Court cited that Parliament had deliberately substituted “may” with “shall”, thereby removing discretion once negotiations failed.

“Talks Delayed, Then Derailed”: Court Notes Breakdown of Inter-State Negotiation Process

The suit had been pending since 2018, and in the intervening years, multiple rounds of negotiation—including field inspections, committee discussions, and ministerial-level talks—were initiated under the supervision of the Union of India. However, these talks failed due to the parties’ conflicting stances.

The Union, in an affidavit dated 7th October 2025, candidly admitted:

“Tamil Nadu stood to its position that a Tribunal be constituted… Karnataka reiterated that it agreed to a 15% release of water but preferred negotiation. Tamil Nadu, however, expressed that any further negotiation would only delay the constitution of the Tribunal.” [Para 5]

Following Tamil Nadu’s firm insistence on adjudication, the Centre postponed all further negotiations indefinitely.

This deadlock, observed the Court, signalled the statutory trigger point under Section 4:

“The affidavit records… that Tamil Nadu unequivocally conveyed that the Pennaiyar River water dispute ought to be resolved through adjudication by a Tribunal.” [Para 8]

“75% Work Already Done—No Interim Injunction, But Statutory Redress Must Now Proceed”: Court Refuses Relief, Preserves Status Quo

During the pendency of the suit, Tamil Nadu had also sought interim relief to restrain Karnataka from completing the disputed construction works. However, the Court, in 2019, refused to pass any injunction, noting that:

“Nearly 75% of the construction work had already been completed… prima facie indicated that the project… had been undertaken after obtaining all requisite sanctions.” [Para 2.9]

Even as interim relief was declined, the Supreme Court, back then, had explicitly granted liberty to Tamil Nadu to invoke Section 3 of the Act by filing a complaint with the Centre—which Tamil Nadu did.

“A Judicial Dam Against Executive Delay”: Court Gives One Month Deadline to Union of India

Bringing an end to years of litigation under its original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court issued a clear directive to the Union of India:

“We find no reason to refrain from directing the Central Government to issue an appropriate notification in the Official Gazette and to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal… within a period of one month from today.” [Para 10]

The Court disposed of the suit, while ensuring that all substantive legal, historical, and equitable issues remain open for full adjudication by the future Tribunal.

This ruling is a constitutional and statutory watershed moment, reaffirming that Article 131 suits involving inter-State water disputes must give way to statutory adjudication once negotiations collapse. With this judgment, the Supreme Court has once again placed the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, at the forefront of Indian federalism and water justice.

The Pennaiyar dispute now enters the next phase—one governed not by political impasse, but by judicial resolution through a dedicated Tribunal.

“The judicial process cannot restore natural flows of a river, but it can ensure the flow of constitutional process,” the Court has effectively affirmed.

Date of Decision: 2 February 2026