{"id":91551,"date":"2016-12-09T15:21:11","date_gmt":"2016-12-09T09:51:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=91551"},"modified":"2016-12-16T16:18:20","modified_gmt":"2016-12-16T10:48:20","slug":"cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/","title":{"rendered":"Cauvery Dispute: Sections 6(2) and 11 of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: In the Cauvery Water Dispute where the issue relating to referring the matter to the Tribunal was concerned, the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ said that once a water dispute, as defined under Article 262(1) read with provisions of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 is adjudicated by the tribunal, it loses the nature of dispute. A person aggrieved can always have his remedy invoking the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Court, hence, held that the contention of the Union of India with regard to the maintainability of the appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India stands repelled.<\/p>\n

The Court explained that the Section 11 of the 1956 Act bars the jurisdiction of the courts and needless to say, that is in consonance with the language employed in Article 262 of the Constitution. 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. It was held that Section 6 of 1956 Act cannot be interpreted in an absolute mechanical manner and the words \u201csame force as on order or decision\u201d cannot be treated as a decree for the purpose for excluding the jurisdiction of this Court. The language employed in Section 6(2) of 1956 Act suggests that the decision of the tribunal shall have the same force as the order or decree of this Court. There is a distinction between having the same force as an order or decree of this Court and passing of a decree by this Court after due adjudication. The Parliament has intentionally used the words from which it can be construed that a legal fiction is meant to serve the purpose for which the fiction has been created and not intended to travel beyond it. The purpose is to have the binding effect of the tribunal\u2019s award and the effectiveness of enforceability. Thus, it has to be narrowly construed regard being had to the purpose it is meant to serve.<\/p>\n

Stating 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, the Court said that the exposition of the principles of law relating to fiction, the intendment of the legislature and the ultimate purpose and effect of the provision called for repelling the submissions raised on behalf of the Union of India that Section 6(2) bars the jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 136. [State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1450<\/a>, decided on 09.12.2016]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: In the Cauvery Water Dispute where the issue relating to referring the matter to the Tribunal was concerned, the 3-judge <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121,"featured_media":27341,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[9682,11891,9232,9691],"class_list":["post-91551","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-article-136","tag-bar-to-jurisdiction","tag-cauvery-dispute","tag-water-dispute"],"yoast_head":"\nCauvery Dispute: Sections 6(2) and 11 of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cauvery Dispute: Sections 6(2) and 11 of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: In the Cauvery Water Dispute where the issue relating to referring the matter to the Tribunal was concerned, the 3-judge\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-12-09T09:51:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-16T10:48:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1280\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/\",\"name\":\"Cauvery Dispute: Sections 6(2) and 11 of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-12-09T09:51:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-16T10:48:20+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1280},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Cauvery Dispute: Sections 6(2) and 11 of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\",\"name\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"caption\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\"},\"description\":\"Senior Associate Editor\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Cauvery Dispute: Sections 6(2) and 11 of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cauvery Dispute: Sections 6(2) and 11 of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136","og_description":"Supreme Court: In the Cauvery Water Dispute where the issue relating to referring the matter to the Tribunal was concerned, the 3-judge","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-12-09T09:51:11+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-16T10:48:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1280,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prachi Bhardwaj","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/","name":"Cauvery Dispute: Sections 6(2) and 11 of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","datePublished":"2016-12-09T09:51:11+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-16T10:48:20+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","width":1920,"height":1280},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Cauvery Dispute: Sections 6(2) and 11 of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942","name":"Prachi Bhardwaj","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","caption":"Prachi Bhardwaj"},"description":"Senior Associate Editor","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":246231,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/27\/a-perpetual-tussle-over-water-resources-an-inevitable-need-for-inter-state-mediation-in-inter-state-water-disputes\/","url_meta":{"origin":91551,"position":0},"title":"A perpetual tussle over Water Resources: An inevitable need for Inter-State mediation in Inter-State Water Disputes","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 27, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Iram Majid\u2020 Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 19","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-34.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-34.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-34.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-34.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-34.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":195694,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/30\/2018-scc-vol-4-april-28-2018-part-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":91551,"position":1},"title":"2018 SCC Vol. 4 April 28, 2018 Part 1","author":"Saba","date":"April 30, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 \u2014 Ss. 5, 6, 3 and 2(c): In Cauvery Water Dispute Casescase, State of Karnataka gets additional 14.75 TMC of water in light of availability of groundwater in Sate of Tamil Nadu. [State of Karnataka v. State of T.N., (2018) 4 SCC 1]","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":190124,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/16\/cauvery-water-dispute-karnataka-gets-additional-14-75-tmc-water-light-availability-groundwater-tamil-nadu\/","url_meta":{"origin":91551,"position":2},"title":"Cauvery Water Dispute: Karnataka gets additional 14.75 TMC of water in light of availability of groundwater in Tamil Nadu","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 16, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Deciding the Cauvery Water Dispute that reportedly travels beyond 100 years, the bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar, JJ awarded to the State of Karnataka an additional 14.75 TMC of water, i.e., 10 TMC, on account of availability of ground water in Tamil\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":193976,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/14\/mahanadi-water-disputes-tribunal-constituted-with-justice-khanwilkar-as-chairman\/","url_meta":{"origin":91551,"position":3},"title":"Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal constituted with Justice Khanwilkar as Chairman","author":"Saba","date":"March 14, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (33 of 1956), (and by an order of the President), the Central Government has constituted the Water Disputes Tribunal called \u2018The Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal\u2019, headquartered at New Delhi for the adjudication of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/River-Mahanadi.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/River-Mahanadi.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/River-Mahanadi.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/River-Mahanadi.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/River-Mahanadi.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":193644,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/03\/mahanadi-water-disputes-tribunal-constituted-inter-state-river-disputes-act-1956\/","url_meta":{"origin":91551,"position":4},"title":"Mahanadi Water Disputes: Tribunal to be constituted under Inter-State River Disputes Act, 1956","author":"Saba","date":"March 3, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"The Union Cabinet has approved the proposal for adjudication of dispute on Mahanadi River Waters. The Tribunal shall determine water sharing among basin States on the basis of the overall availability of water in the complete Mahanadi basin, contribution of each State, the present utilization of water resources in each\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":71921,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/09\/21\/cauvery-water-dispute-state-of-karnataka-to-release-6000-cusecs-of-water-till-27-09-2016\/","url_meta":{"origin":91551,"position":5},"title":"Cauvery Water Dispute: State of Karnataka to release 6000 cusecs of water till 27.09.2016","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 21, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: As an interim measure, regard being had to the subsequent developments and the problems that have been highlighted by Fali S. Nariman in the State of Karnataka, the Court directed the State of Karnataka to release 6000 cusecs of water from today till the next date of hearing\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91551","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/121"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=91551"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91551\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/27341"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}