Introduction
After a month of reeling under extreme water scarcity, the Delhi administration was finally able to provide some relief to its citizens, when the Hon’ble Supreme Court (“Court”) ruled in favor of releasing 137 cusecs of Yamuna river water from Himachal Pradesh and further directed the Haryana administration to facilitate the passage for the same. While the case of Government of NCT of Delhi v. State of Haryana & Ors. (“the case”, “matter at hand”) sheds light towards grave water mismanagement in the country, conflicting contentions of riparian states and the inability of river tribunals to provide relief, the case in itself can indeed be perceived to be very executive in nature, thus, bringing the Court’s authority at the much criticized cross-road with the Executive. It can be argued that the Court being a Constitutional body is mandated to act as a vigilante against the infringement of people’s basic rights and hence, necessarily intervened at a time of crisis where the Executive went numb. At most it can be considered as an example of a successful case of judicial activism. Yet critics of such an activist judiciary and believers in the idea of strict separation of power might find this decision to be of paramount breach. For instance, the jurisdiction of the Court in itself comes to question. In such circumstances this very decision can be perceived to be yet another case of judicial overreach. While exploring the legal aspects around the judgment-directive, this Article makes a case for judicial activism and its inherence in the present instance as opposed to overreach.
The Question of Jurisdiction
Water resources fall under the State List as Entry 17 and may be found in the Union List as well under Entry 56, though this power vested in the Union Government has been limited in use, most significantly in setting up of the River Boards Act. In fact, Article 262 mandates that the state exercises its authority under Entry 17 in a manner that does not harm the interests of other states. This ensures that any actions taken under this Entry are conducted with consideration for the rights and needs of neighboring states, promoting inter-state harmony and cooperation.
While the Legislation has been given providence in lieu of management of river bodies, the Judiciary, in this regard, is in fact constitutionally shackled. In exercise of this provision, the Parliament implemented the Inter-State Water Disputes Act and The River Boards Act, 1956 that established inter-state river boards and tribunals for the negotiation and resolution of inter-state water disputes with exclusive jurisdiction.
Pursuant of such legal provisions, in its bare reading, it can be concluded that the Court in handling such disputes suffers from lack of jurisdiction. However, this may not be the correct conclusion.
In the case of The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi vs Employees Of The Bharat Bank, the Supreme Court determined that even though tribunals have many characteristics of a court, they are not considered courts. This indicates that while tribunals have similar judicial powers and function as quasi-judicial bodies, they cannot be equated to courts. In the case of Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs The Honble Speaker Manipur, the Court further reiterated that “tribunals” comes under the jurisdiction of the Court. While discussing the judicial powers of the Speaker of the House, the Court stated,
“The Speakers/Chairmen while exercising powers and discharging functions under the Tenth Schedule act as Tribunal adjudicating rights and obligations under the Tenth Schedule and their decisions in that capacity are amenable to judicial review”
Thus, the Court delivered its verdict in the Kaveri water dispute, allocating more water to the state of Karnataka.By the virtue of the existence and exercise of Article 262 of the Constitution debarring the jurisdiction of the Courts,jurists dispute the jurisdiction of the Court in cases of water disputes which must fall under the special tribunals set up by The River Boards Act, 1956 (“RBA”). However, the interpretation of tribunals as subordinates to the Court provides the latter plenary powers that empowers its suzerainty over the Upper Yamuna River Board (“UYRB”) that originally adjudicated the matter at hand. Tribunals set up by statutes, like that of the UYRB set up under RBA in 1995 and having adjudicatory authority to settle water disputes between the states therefore are quasi-judicial bodies. Thus, tribunals being quasi-judicial bodies and carrying out judicial functionaries fall under the authority of the Court, and hence the Court has jurisdiction over inter-state water disputes.
Overreach or Activism?
With the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter settled, the decision must therefore be analyzed with respect to its perceived overreaching tendencies. As a matter of fact, the petition was moved by the Delhi administration in the Supreme Court after receiving no avail to its request for releasing water by the Haryana Government. The Petitioners claimed the breach of the doctrine of riparian rights and accused the state administration of obstructing the Himachal Pradesh Government from releasing the surplus of their share which they offered to provide unilaterally. The Opposing Party held that they lack the ability to package such portions of water from their share of the flow and that such a decision would truncate their own water supply owning to a scarcity of their own. None of the parties including the Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India challenged the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also noted that “They (the parties) also confirmed that as indicated in the petition, such an arrangement will not be taken as precedence in future” thus indicating the exemplary conditions leading to the decision and bestowing no precedential value. All the more, the Court stressed upon the humanitarian aspect of the entire proceedings that do not leave room for mere technicalities to hinge the relief to civilians. The Court stressed upon some conservationist guideline as discussed in the UYRB meeting to meet the water needs in Delhi.
Aside from the specifics of the case, a larger picture looms over the question of overreach. While judicial activism arises with the Court’s legitimate interest arising out of its duty to protect the rights of the citizens and judicial restraint exists where such legitimate or formal legal interest in lacked thereof, judicial overreach is rather a myth inexistent. While it is true that Constitution’s approach with the term as in used “procedure established by law” gives a formalistic meaning of law completely in the domain of the Legislature to decide, the Judiciary not only as adjudicator of disputes but also the sentinels of justice have to regard to the substantive aspect of law to be “just, fair and equitable” as understood to be the ideals of independent India, indicated by the Preamble of the Constitution. With the turn of the century and expansion of various rights and liberties of the citizens, the Judiciary is duty-bound not be a mute spectator of Governments depriving the fundamental necessities of the citizens or just as in this case neglecting its responsibilities on bureaucratic or technical grounds and inter-state contentions. Indeed, a Judiciary insisting on the sine qua non of judicial intervention would be a submissive judiciary bedecked of ideals but bereft of action, especially in emergencies as exemplified in this case.
In the given case, the citizens were deprived off water, which is a fundamental right. The administration unable to provide immediate solution thus gave the Court a legitimate interest with regards to the petition filed by the Government of NCT and hence the provided direction is thus, justified.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Delhi water crisis case underscores the complex interplay between judicial intervention and executive action. This ruling, which mandated the release of 137 cusecs of Yamuna River water to alleviate Delhi’s water scarcity, highlights significant issues in water management, inter-state disputes, and the efficacy of river tribunals. The core question is whether the Court’s decision constitutes judicial overreach or rightful activism.
Whereas the Court might be perceived of overstepping its boundaries taking an Executive decision regarding a matter set outside its formal jurisdiction, historical precedence coupled with its supremacy over quasi-judicial bodies like tribunals similar to other subordinate judicial bodies settles the matter at hand within its domain.
The Court’s intervention can be seen as a response to administrative inertia and inter-state conflicts that left Delhi’s citizens in distress. By taking this action, the Court not only provided immediate relief but also underscored the importance of substantive justice over procedural technicalities. The decision reflects a broader judicial philosophy that prioritizes the protection of fundamental rights and the welfare of citizens, especially in emergencies where other branches of government falter.
Ultimately, the ruling emphasizes the judiciary’s role as a sentinel of justice, capable of stepping in when necessary to address urgent needs and uphold the ideals enshrined in the Constitution. Far from being an overreach, this decision exemplifies the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring just, fair, and equitable outcomes in the face of pressing societal challenges.
The Author is a second-year student at National Law University Odisha, Cuttack
Image Credit: Hindustan Times
Constitutional Law Society 
Leave a comment