The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

NEWS AND VIEWS

PUNJAB

HARYANA

JAMMU & KASHMIR

HIMACHAL

REGIONAL BRIEFS

NATION

OPINIONS

LETTERS

BUSINESS

SPORTS

WORLD

SPECIAL COVERAGE

CHANDIGARH

LUDHIANA

DELHI

THE TRIBUNE SPECIALS

50 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE

TERCENTENARY CELEBRATIONS

M A I N N E W S

inter state water disputes
SC: Legislature can’t nullify judgments
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, May 7
In a verdict that could have a direct bearing on pending inter-state water disputes, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled Parliament and Assemblies had no power to enact laws to nullify judicial verdicts based on facts and findings. “Under the pretence of power, legislature cannot neutralise the effect of the judgment given after ascertainment of fact by means of evidence/materials placed by the parties to the dispute,” a Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice RM Lodha held.

“A plain and simple judicial decision on fact cannot be altered by a legislative decision by employing doctrines or principles such as public trust doctrine, precautionary principle, larger safety principle and competence of state legislature to override agreements between two states,” the Bench made it clear.

The apex court made the clarification while virtually quashing a law enacted by the Kerala Assembly in 2006, primarily nullifying its verdict earlier that year allowing Tamil Nadu to store more water in the Mellaperiyar Dam across Periyar river.

“The rights of Tamil Nadu, crystallised in the judgment dated 27.2.2006 passed by this court in WPC No. 386/2001 cannot be nullified by a legislation made by the Kerala State legislature,” the Supreme Court ruled.

The other judges on the Constitution Bench were Justices HL Dattu, CK Prasad, Madan B Lokur and MY Eqbal.

The SC acknowledged that under the Constitutional principle, the legislature had the power to render judicial decisions “ineffective by enacting validating law within its legislative field fundamentally altering or changing its character retrospectively.”

But this power “has no application where a judicial decision has been rendered by recording a finding of fact... A (judicial) decision which disposes of the matter by giving findings upon the facts is not open to change by legislature. A final judgment, once rendered, operates and remains in force until altered by the court in appropriate proceedings,” the SC explained.

The Bench said it was true that the state’s sovereign interests provided the foundation of the public trust doctrine, but the judicial function was also a very important sovereign function of the state and the foundation of the rule of law. As such, the legislature had no right to cite any doctrine or principle to “directly or indirectly set aside the authoritative and binding finding of fact by the Court.”

The SYL canal verdict

The court is seized of the Presidential Reference on validity of the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, that had sought to over-ride its 2002 verdict asking the state to complete the SYL canal for sharing surplus waters of the Ravi and Beas with Haryana and Rajasthan. The SC had delivered the 2002 judgment on an original suit filed by Haryana in 1996 making Punjab a defendant.

Mullaperiyar Dam row

The SC held the 120-year-old Mullaperiyar Dam was safe and allowed the Tamil Nadu Government to raise the water level to 142 feet and ultimately to 152 feet after completion of strengthening measures on the dam

It pulled up the Kerala Government for enacting a law that overruled its 2006 verdict by which it had declared the dam safe and allowed Tamil Nadu to raise the water level

A final judgment, once rendered, operates and remains in force until altered by the court in appropriate proceedings, it said.