Triple Talaq Verdict: Certain Misgivings on the Majority

The week past has been an important one for the two important verdicts delivered by the Supreme Court on Triple Talaq and the Right to Privacy has ushered in new changes in the constitutional outlook. Especially the verdict by the Supreme Court declaring the Triple Talaq to be illegal has been hailed by the members of the civil society as an important step towards the realization of equality for women. However, the 3:2 majority that delivered the verdict, precariously thin majority that it is, has given rise to more questions than what it purports to settle now. The jurisprudential questions that it has opened up will give rise to new round of debates over religious rights vis-a-vis the individual liberties. More than the outcome the basis upon which it has been arrived at poses certain intriguing questions that could give rise to new round of debates in the future. This is especially because even within the majority of three judges the authors Kurian Joseph J. and Rohinton Nariman J. differs on the fundamental reasoning to call the practice of TT invalid. Nariman J. in order to declare Triple Talaq to be illegal puts forward two fold reasoning.
1) It is 'arbitrary' in violation of right to equality under Article 14 and hence unconstitutional.
2) Triple Talaq is against the fundamental tenets of Islam and hence illegal.
In his first reasoning, Justice Nariman has restricted himself only to test the practice of Triple Talaq upon the principles of equality under Article 14, while wholly ignoring the discrimination that sexual discrimination that this practice causes by testing its validity against Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex amongst other grounds. To the contrary, Justice Kurian Joseph takes a rather narrow approach by only testing the whether the practice of triple Talaq is against the fundamental principles of Islam itself without any resort to the arguments of the Petitioners upon the infringement of the affected women’s fundamental rights. While testing the Triple Talaq crucially did not feel the need to inquire into the constitutionality of Triple Talaq. He differs from the opinion of Justice Nariman in his finding that Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 is a law that regulates Talaq, a precondition under Article 13 (1) of the constitution to invalidate anything to be unconstitutional. He has in fact agreed with minority opinion of Chief Justice Kehar in this regard. in holding that the 1937 Act is not a legislation regulating talaq, rather it merely states that "Shariat [is] applicable as the rule of decision in the matters enumerated in section 2" of 1937 Act. His reasoning for holding it illegal under the EP test are similar in nature to that of the opinion of Nariman J. Here he holds that under quran itself, whenever a talaq is granted, an opportunity for reconciliation is necessary and if the reconciliation succeeds revocation can happen. These are essential under Quran. TT closed the opportunity for such a possibility and hence it violated 'shariat'. But this narrow view to declare it illegal, without resorting to the main arguments on discrimination and arbitrariness is a precarious proposition for the enhancement of civil rights. Unless the rights that are alleged to be violated by such regressive religious practices are constitutionally protected it cannot be remedied completely. It is yet a regressive choice that personal laws can prevail over fundamental rights.
Quite independently, Justice Nariman, in consonance with Justice Joseph’s conclusion, also tests the practice by inquiring into whether it permitted within the Islamic jurisprudence or not. In other words, he tests whether it forms an essential inalienable part of the religion of Islam or not, called as ‘essential practices’ test. The test was for the first time used by the court in the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005 case. The question that was involved here is the conflict between the rights to practice a religion (Article 25) as against the intervention of state on the grounds of social welfare and other secular activities. The court held that any kind of infringement of these rights, if it does not affect the essential aspects of the religion, could not be given the protection under Article 25 and 26. Through this argument the court sought to regulate those aspects of a religion that does not form the core of the subject religion.

“… in regard to article 26 is, what is the scope of clause (b) of the article which speaks of management “of its own affairs in matters of religion?" The language undoubtedly suggests that there could be other affairs of a religious denomination or a section thereof which are not matters of religion and to which the guarantee given by this clause would not apply. The question is, whereas the line to be drawn between what are matters of religion and what are not. It will be seen that besides the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, which is given by clause (b), the next two clauses of article 26 guarantee to a religious denomination the right to acquire and own property and to administer such property in accordance with law.”

This test essentially gives the power to courts to decide upon what constitutes the essential aspects of religion, fundamentally altering freedom choice in the inner belief system of an individual to an externally dictated version of it. The reach and practice of a religion, while it cannot be put to any precise definition, the court attempts to do that by relating it powers to find what constituted the integral part of it. In the words of the court:
A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual well being, but it would not be correct to say that religion is nothing else, but a doctrine or belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress. The guarantee under our Constitution not only protects the freedom of religious opinion but it protects also acts done in pursuance of a religion and this is made clear by the use of the expression "practice of religion" in Article 25.
The attempt here is to secularize the religion with an external definition that might run contrary to the manner in which the followers of a particular religion would interpret it actually. This reverses the freedom of choice of a person to see the religion in the way that he chooses it to be as against an externally dictated conception of the belief system of the individual. This is an unnecessary exercise, which could have been avoided, to look into the validity of the practice when the rights infringed are constitutionally guaranteed rights of individuals.
This, in fact, runs quite contrary to the secular ideals that were envisaged under Article 25, which leaves things to choice sensitive to religious and legal pluralism rather than an expectation in terms of normative uniformity. Also, the definition of “religion” itself was given the widest possible amplitude in this judgment

“Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. There are well known religions in India like Buddhism and Jainism which do not believe in God or in any Intelligent First Cause. A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual well being, but it would not be correct to say that religion is nothing else but a doctrine of belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress.”

In fact, Nariman J. while noting this judgment states, “atheism would also form part of “religion”.” (Para 24) By both providing the powers to define what constitutes ones faith and by defining the term “religion” under the “essential practices” test the court’s power has arrogated to itself the powers to homogeneously define anything that falls under the term “religion”. In fact this has been used so much so that in a recent case the Supreme Court decided whether keeping a beard formed the essential practice under Islam or not. (Mohammed Zubair Corporal No.781467-G Vs. Union of India & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 8643 of 2009)
The subsequent line of judgments on this question both reiterated and expanded this. The fundamental issue here with this present TT judgment perpetrating this is that it chokes the critical ability of a person to self identify his own belief system by possibly alienating a social norm that does not conform to these devised tests imposed by the judiciary. There cannot be any straitjacket definition that could possibly be provided for a person’s faith by eliminating the role played by freedom of choice for an individual guaranteed under the Constitution. Counterintuitively this test curtails the very freedom the practice religion (according to one’s own conception of what religion is) that it seeks to protect under Article 25, creating an anomaly.
In the present case, Nariman J., in order to hold the TT to be unconstitutional, first he brought the 1937 act under the definition of “laws in force” Article 13 (1) in order to test TT for infringement of the Muslim Women’s rights under Article 14, as against the opinion of Kurian Joseph J. By holding that TT can be tested on the anvil of the principles ‘arbitrariness’ developed under Article 14 the case was very much made for holding it unconstitutional. There never arose any need for Nariman J. to resort to whether TT forms an essential practice of Islam. This was an invaluable opportunity to discard this test altogether from the constitutional jurisprudence.

Individual Liberty Vs. Religious Rights

The parochial understanding paid to the underlying questions upon the civil liberties of the affected women is made visible by the choice of the court to not reconsider the past precedent in State of Bombay Vs. Narassu Appa Mali, which held that personal laws cannot be subject to the restrictions of fundamental rights. It is quite anachronistic that individual rights are given precedence for the communal rights in an era where completely new forms of rights are propounded by the court. The narrow view taken by the judges, including the dissenting minority, without resorting to the main arguments on discrimination is a precarious proposition for the furtherance of civil rights jurisprudence. Unless the rights that are alleged to be violated by such regressive religious practices are constitutionally protected it cannot be remedied completely. It is yet a regressive choice that personal laws can prevail over fundamental rights. This is a classic example of misplaced priorities of the court in balancing individual liberties against the communal rights. More than the overall the conclusion, the failure of the court to recognize the inequality in the prevalent social structure against the women would ring against the liberal conscience of the court.

Formal Vs. Substantive Equality

The opinion rendered by Justice Nariman is celebrated by scholars for furthering the jurisprudence of equality and the principles of ‘arbitrariness’ under Article 14 of the Constitution. This is missing the wood for the trees. The verdicts failure to even recognize that there has been discrimination based on sex, in violation of Article 15, has misdirected the inequality analysis. It is only after taking into consideration the substantive effects of sex of a person plays a role in directing discrimination that one can recognize the mischief that is sought to be remedied. The superficial assessment of all the three opinions has failed to look at the root cause that is gender discrimination only accords a formal equality that has not remedied the issue. This is only a formal equality giving a short shrift to the unequal bargaining power of women in a family structure. It is necessary that the discussion must redirect its attention to the social constructs of discrimination and must analyze it in its own terms. The deeper questions over economic dependence of women, artificial construct of gender based social hierarchy and the resultant discrimination cannot be answered without it. It must deconstruct the social, economic and political dimensions of the gender based discrimination that are a direct result of a conservative understanding of women’s position in the society to achieve substantive equality by travelling the last mile.
A mechanical look at the majority opinion might show it to be a progressive verdict in terms of its outcome; however, it is yet another opportunity missed by the judiciary to protect a major vulnerable section of the society from discrimination and abuse. Jurisprudentially there is a great difference in the two opinions of the majority putting things at a naught. It would be interesting to see the further development of jurisprudence upon this pulpit in the future and how these differences within the majority are going to play out further.

ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivakant Shukla: Supreme Court and its Jurisprudence of Redemption

If there is one case which marked the downfall of Indian judiciary no doubt that it will be Habeas Corpus case (ADM Jabalpur Vs. Shivakant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521). The case was decided by the court in a highly charged political situation and it was clearly visible for everyone that the decision was made the court not on merits but on external political considerations. The tragedy also gifted us with the courageous dissent of Hon'ble Justice H.R.Khanna who went down the annals of history and the saviour of the ideals for which the Indian democracy stood for. But the mortal blow that the decision and its subsequent repercussions dealt to the higher judiciary took a long time to recover. During the hearing of the case when Justice Khanna specifically asked whether there would be any remedy if a police officer, because of personal enimity, took into detention a law abiding citizen and even put an end to his life. The attorney general unequivocally stated that, 'consistently with my argument there will be no judicial remedy in such cases as long as the emergency lasts’. It is a treacherous path that the government went into and which the Supreme Court gave into. The decision altered the very nature and course that the judiciary was to take in its days to come. The blatant supersession of Justice Khanna in his appointment as the Chief Justice of India was a direct result of his dissent from the 4 other judges forming the majority which held that even fundamental rights are suspended when emergency is proclaimed. The then judicial reclusiveness gave way to newly found activism which elevated it to unknown heights. The judiciary cloistered itself and arrogated to it all powers that was possibly within its reach under the Constitution including its own process of appointments and transfers. Entering into a new era, its subsequent interpretive ventures expanded both reach and scope of civil liberties under the Constitution.

The new jurisprudence that which was heralded by the Supreme Court post the Habeas Corpus case ushered in an positive morality to the constituional provisions. But it is yet a surprising fact that the judgement, which is seen as a gruesome manifestation of state power, has dubious validity without being explicitly overruled. There arose no opportunity for the Apex Court to revisit this byproduct of the dark hours of emergency. In an era where far reaching rights, which were never intended or contemplated by the framers of the Constitution were provided by the judiciary purely through its powers of interpretation, it baffles one's reasoning power to think that this still forms a part of its history. In contrast with the judiciary that we know of now, this judgement yet remains a blemish in its record. To put this in perspective a passage from the majority judgement written by J. Beg will be instructive

“we understand that the care and concern bestowed by the State authorities upon the welfare of detenus who are well-housed, well-fed, and well-treated, is almost maternal. Even parents have to take appropriate prevent action against those children who may threaten to burn down the house they live in.”

The subsequent jurisprudence expounded by the Supreme Court in a series of landmark judgements changed the fundamental approach towards the interpretation of constitutional rights and the remedies. Therefore it is important for us to see what is the scope and reach of the jurisprudential conclusion arrived at by the court in this infamous judgement. Apart from its conclusion on the suspension of fundamental rights during emergency it also raised several contentious issues upon the substantive and procedural justice and it's implications.

The issue that arose in ADM Jabalpur is whether constitutional remedies under Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution can be availed by a party whose fundamental rights are infringed during emergency or not. The issue arose when, after the declaration of emergency by the President, many leaders of the opposition were arrested by the government on one pretext or the other all over the country. Within two days of declaring the emergency the President made another declaration whereby no person could move the courts for enforcement of articles 14, 21 & 22. The detainees initiated Habeas Corpus petition before the high courts challenging their detention. Though the judiciary was not able to examine the order of detention on any illegality under the maintenance of internal security act, 1971, several High Courts granted the relief to such Petitoners by scrutinising the validity of such detention orders on the pedestal of fundamental rights conferred under Article 14, 21 and 22, in spite of the proclamation of emergency under Article 359. The Supreme Court in the challenge to such orders concluded that

"Article 359 prohibited enforcement of articles 14, 21 & 22 and it also barred anyone from approaching the High Court to question his detention on any ground whatsoever. Liberty is the gift of law and can be forfeited by law. There is a complete bar to approach the court for any violation of articles 14, 21 and 22 once a proclamation under Article 359 is made. No person can question his detention for any reason whatsoever or on the ground that it is illegal and mala fide."

In a textualist reading of the provisions the majority concluded the above by ignoring the fact that one does always have to read the provisions of the Constitution with strict fidelity to its text, or in a manner faithful to the intent of its framers. The parochial understanding of Article 21 and its substantive reach was directly carried over from the A.K.Gopalan (AIR 1950 SC 27) where the court rejected the arguments to import the due process clause from the American Constitution. The entailing effect was that even when a procedure established by law passed by the legislature offends Part III the validity of such a law or the procedure cannot be challenged. The court also concluded the fundamental rights to be mutually exclusive and are water tight compartments which cannot have spilling effects on the other rights conferred under Part III of the Constitution. The substantive effect of such a conclusion is that the rights that were not explicitly recognized under the Part III cannot be enforced. The dissent by J. Khanna in refusal tellingly stated that 

“The right not to be deprived of one's life or liberty without the authority of law was not the creation of the Constitution. Such right existed before the Constitution came into force. The fact that the framers of the Constitution made an aspect of such right a part of the fundamental rights  I did not have the effect of exterminating the independent identity of such a right and of making Article 21 to be the sole repository of that right.” (para 531)

This conclusion of the court over the ambit and scope of Article 21 that is seen above was substantially overruled by the court the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248. It is of interest to know that (ironically) three of the judges (Beg, Chandrachud, and Bhagwati) in the bench which decided the Maneka Gandhi were also a part of the bench which decided the Habeas Corpus case. It substantially imported the due process clause, which was consciously eschewed by the framers of the Constitution. The jurisprudence that was spearheaded by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decades expanded the ambit of the ‘due process’ to include 'substantial’ due process. In fact, it is the author of the Habeas Corpus judgement J. Bhagwati who opened up a whole new arena of rights under Article 21 by recognizing the epistolary jurisprudence for the first in the history heralding the new era of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). If one looks at the human participants behind these judgements, one cannot help but think that the ground breaking jurisprudence heralded by the Apex Court is a jurisprudence of redemption for what it failed to do during the hours of want for this country. While the external pressure made these decision makers to follow this path of regression, the subsequent decades, post emergency, provided valuable lessons for the judiciary to be cautious of the executive excesses affecting the Independence of judiciary and its ability to curtail the freedom. The judiciary saw this as an opportunity to redeem its role as a protector of civil liberties enshrined under the Constitution. Undoubtedly the subsequent developments be it the expansion of Article 21 to include civil rights of the new era or the expansion of its powers of judicial  review is towards this goal. It is necessary for the court to not forget such lessons in the present when questions as to the very existence of rights as basic as privacy are put to question by the state before the court.

P.S: In the arguments before the 9 Judge bench, constituted for deciding on the fundamental right to privacy, Advocate Mr.Gopal Shankaranarayanan made an argument (albeit as a passing remark) that this judgement can be overruled by the present bench. The legal effect of the judgement, apart from the implied overruling by subsequent judgements of the court, the 44th constitutional amendment nullified it. Making it irrelevant as far as the legal effect is concerned. However, it yet remains as a blot in the judicial reasoning and deserves to be overruled by the present bench of 9 judges.

Right to Privacy: Summary of Arguments Made by the Petitioners on Day 2 of the Hearings

Day 2: 

The bench comprised of 9 judges sitting from left to right in the following order

• Sanjay Kishan Kaul J.
• A.M. Sapre J.
• R.K. Agarwal J.
• Jasti Chelameshwar J.
• J.S. Kehar J.
• S.A. Bobde J.
• R.F. Nariman J.
• Dhananjay Chandrachud J.
• Navin Sinha J.

10:30 AM: Arguments were continued by Sr. Advocate Mr.Arvind Datar from where he let off the previous day

• The three types of privacy that an individual can command are as follows
• Physical privacy: Protection against tangible and intangible invasion of private space.
• Informational privacy: An individual's control over the dissemination of his private information.
• Decisional privacy: Protection of an individual's autonomy over fundamental personal choices.
• Interrupted by Dhananjay Chandrachud J. (DyC) with the following question 

DyC: For us to claim the protection from invasion of privacy from the state is one thing. But for a horizontal right like Right to Privacy can the same be enforced against private entities?

Datar: The remedy in that case is of damages.

DyC: But, the state has equal obligation for protection even against violations by a private player. Say for example its role might by to frame appropriate rules and regulations to prevent such violations from happening.

Datar: Yes! I completely agree. The state is obligated to play its role.

DyC: But the obligation and the entailing burden on the state may not be equal in all such horizontal rights.

11:00 AM: Mr.Datar rested his arguments and the stage was taken by Sr.Adv. Mr.Anand Grover

• Maneka Gandhi has overrules Kharak Singh, so there is no need to get into that discussion.
• The UOI has made a primary argument that the Right to Privacy is not present within the constitution in any form. If at all it is granted as a common law right. I say that English Common Law does not recognise the right. It is imported by the American Jurisprudence.
• It is baffling that we are still debating upon the very existence of a right as essential as this after the passage of such a long time.
• Such form of human rights is a part of the obligation that India has under the international instruments that it has signed. (Cites Article 17 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
• Sr. Adv. Mr.Gopal Subramanium (GS) interrupts: The recent Manipur judgement (Extra Judl. Exec. Victims Families Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. W.P. Crl. No.129/2012) delivered by M.B. Lokur J. discusses this.
• It is the obligation of the state to implement and comply with such international instruments if it is not against any of the domestic law. It is in pursuance of such obligation that several acts like Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 were enacted. In fact, Section 12 (f) of the Act obligates the National Human Rights Commission to study treaties and other international instruments on human rights to make suitable recommendations for their effective implementation. Interrupted by Rohinton F. Nariman J. (RFN)

RFN: The court can issue a mandamus to the government to enforce the commitments of the nation under such international instruments.

GS: Yes! It has happened in the past.

• If there is no domestic law and there is international law then the international law will prevail. This has been enunciated in the Vishaka Judgement by the Supreme Court itself.

RFN: Then we can say that the 8 judge bench in the M.P.Sharma case is outrightly wrong since it was delivered in the face of international instruments such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Grover: Also it does not have the ratio decidendi. Privacy was never an issue before that bench.

• Dignity is always associated with privacy. Interrupted by DyC: "Then the NALSA judgement would become vulnerable". (Mr.Grover enters into an animated discussion about the NALSA judgement by tracing out the dignity and privacy aspects of the issues involved in that case).
• The present bench should not precisely define the Right to Privacy in its totality. It may trace its contours to provide a general idea and leave the rest to be decided on case to case basis. 
• Cites Govind Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1975 SCR (3) 946. DyC: This judgement by Mathews J. is a rather narrow conception of privacy. The issue was not entertained in its full context. Only now the issue is entertained in full fledged manner.
• Tests that can be used differs from the Article under which the issue of privacy arises. It can either arise in Art.19 or 21. So the issue must be adjudicated and tested in the appropriate context. Several of such tests can be 
• Compelling state interest test.
• Proportionality test.
• Least Restrictive test.
• Legitimacy test.
• Privacy would also entail the right to identity and right to remain anonymous. DyC cites several practical examples where the issues of privacy and state necessity are encountered.

In applying for a passport for an adopted child can the authority compel to disclose the details of biological parents. Also in case of a single mother can there be any compulsion to disclose the identity of the father? To what extent such rights can be claimed, if at all there is any?

Suppose the government maintains a register about all people who has committed a crime. The violation of the Right to Privacy is not merely of the maintaining the register. There will be one if such an information is used to profile individuals and their propensity to commit crime. 

Ultimately, the important issue is that the identity should not be used to stigmatise the person. (Cites NALSA judgement.)

• Cites Right to Privacy and bodily integrity of a mentally unstable woman and a victim of rape to give birth to a child. (Suchita Srivastava Vs. Chandigarh Administration)
• There is a right to privacy. But it should not be defined now. It should be on case to case basis. It should be indicative (Sr. Adv. GS whispering in Grover's ears: Let us not go into the merits of Aadhaar case now. Grover nods in agreement).
• The Right to Privacy is all pervading, the test for which will depend on the right in which it manifests itself.

1:50 PM: Arguments rested by Mr.Anand Grover and the stage has been taken by Sr. Adv. Sajjan Poovayya (SjP).

• Cites United States Vs. Jones (2012). DyC: Please tell us about consent, informed consent and its entailing effects.

DyC: If any surveillance is a transgression of Right to Privacy, then what about the legitimate requirements of the state such as a person being put under surveillance under alleges terrorist activities?

SjP: Then it must be done under the procedure established by law.

Chelameshwar: What is the objection on mere collection of data?

SjP: Given the advancement in technology the collection of data and its processing happens near simultaneously due to artificial intelligence. The possibilities of abuse is large. Moreover, in case of a private player I consent for such a collection on a case to case basis on a private contract to avail its services. That is not the case with the state.

• Secrecy is not a prerequisite for protection under Right to Privacy. Even the information in public domain is entitled to such a protection.
• The state is not merely obligated to protect the physical being of its citizens, in modern times it is to protect their digital identity as well.
• Cites the various instances where the legislature has already acknowledged the existence of Right to Privacy.
• Section 5(2) of Telegraph Act.
• Section 8 (j) of RTI Act.

RFN: What happened to the privacy bill?

3:30 PM: Arguments rested by Mr.Poovayya. The stage was taken by Ms.Meenakshi Arora

• Cites Wolf Vs. Colorado.
• Rights there were already there before the Constitution came into being were inhered into the Constitution. Just because it is not stated there does not mean that it does not exist. A similar argument was taken by H.R. Khanna J. in A.D.M.Jabalpur case (Habaeus Corpus Case).
• Cites Row Vs. Wade.

04:00 PM: Adjourned. Hearing of Respondents arguments to continue on Tuesday.

Of the Unkept Promises in the Language Policy of India

Formation of a democratic polity is a complex process of negotiations of various interested groups. They bargain amongst themselves over various factors that would form a part of the overall structure of the society. This could very well be a straightforward process in places where no questions are raised over issues of identity and its constituent factors such as religion, language, culture etc. The answers to such questions are taken for granted during the formative stages of a nation. In this sense, we can clearly see India as an anachronism. It belies all traditional notions of national identity and those that hitherto were considered as formative requirements of a nation. It does not possess either a single religion or a culture that anybody can call as a focal point that brings the unity. However, the yet to be resolved issues of language threaten this unique character. Though, for a long time after the anti-hindi agitations of 60’s this has been a simmering issue, it has come to the forefront recently sparking the debates over the language policy of the union government. Uniquely, voices of protests are being raised from new groups apart from the traditional bastion of Tamil Nadu, giving much more credence to the long-standing demands of the supporters of regional languages. The non-hindi speakers’ non-acceptance of the present language policy is well known. However, what still baffles one’s mind is what could have led to the present situation of discontent? Were the drafters of the constitution so oblivious to even the legitimate demands of a major section of people? 
With the passage of time we have a propensity to disassociate ourselves from taking a critical view of things that we revere. The Constituent Assembly is one of such things where we tend to take a puritanical stance and prefer to look at it as an unblemished record taking it to a metaphysical status. The founding ‘fathers’ were seen as a bunch of angels who convened together with a solitary aim of forging the destiny of the millions. We tend to forget that they are not without their own set of nuanced problems and eccentricities. Each carried with them a distinct vision of the future that the country was to step into and the path that would lead towards that envisioned destiny. The discussions held by the assembly upon the language question of the union displayed best how the conflict of reasonings between members translated into a less than an ideal solution to the problem that was posed. Granted that it is not easy to arrive at an acceptable solution when the assembly itself represented an eclectic mix of people from different backgrounds and different set of ideologies, however, it certainly does not absolve them of the shortcomings or rather deliberate compromises that took us here.
The discussions upon this question begun with a fundamental and unassailable assumption amongst many of the members that there must be a single official language for the union and it must be Hindi. The people who formed this group consisted of the members from Hindi speaking constituencies. None from this group was in the mood to concede any ground to make English as a link language, as suggested by other members who hailed from other non-hindi speaking states. The prejudice was so great that when discussions on the language of the assembly itself was held one of the members Seth Govind Das said “I want to tell my brethren from Madras that if after twenty-five years of efforts on the part of Mahatma Gandhi they have not been able to understand Hindustani, the blame lies at their door. It is beyond our patience that because some of our brethren from Madras do not understand Hindustani, English should reign supreme in a Constituent Assembly... assembled to frame a Constitution for a free India”. In the course there was a flurry of suggested amendments to the draft, of which several were so extreme as to even refuse the transitory period for the usage of Hindi to come into force, nor did they feel any necessity to accord a constitutional status to the regional languages as suggested by the Munshi-Ayyangar formula. An assembly of men, who, until then, made everything based upon consensus, broke into an acrimonious dispute over the issue that threatened the very purpose for which they set forth with. It took the united efforts of other moderate members (as Granville Austin calls the members of the assembly who believed that English must perform the role of a link language and must be replaced by Hindi slowly and cautiously) to stall the efforts towards hoisting a linguistic hegemony by the extremist members of the assembly. More than what the record indicates the solution that was arrived was due to the intense background negotiations held amongst the party members, since it was the earnest belief of the members that all outcomes must be based upon mutual consensus. However, it would be funny to know that the bitterness that the language question caused would have derailed this unwritten rule of the assembly. When a voting was taken to decide upon the official numerals between Hindi and international numerals it was passed in favour of hindi numerals by a slender margin of one vote. Sensing that such an important question cannot be imposed upon others on wafer thin majority Nehru pleaded against it. It was at this stage the Munshi-Ayyangar formula was proposed as a form of compromise. This formula eschewed the very concept of a national language and in its place proposed to have official language as against the wishes of pro-hindi agitators within the assembly. Apart from this it also suggested for an interim measure to use English as a language of the union in addition to Hindi for a period of 15 years, which can be further extended in case of need amongst other measures. It was an overwhelming concessions from both sides of the camp that resulted in Part XVII of the Constitution that deals with the official language.
All through one can sense an overwhelming sense of urgency with which the question was dealt with by the assembly. There was a lingering anxiety to ensure that the language issue does not topple the larger project of constitution that was standing in front of the assembly. It would not be an exaggeration to state that this anxiety has resulted in a less than optimal solution for the issue, for it curtailed the legitimate aspirations of large sections of the populace to be recognised as a part of the democratic polity. It is plainly visible that the assembly in order to deal with its inability to resolve the issue merely provided for a temporary compromise to carry forward its functions without hindrance. They merely postponed the righteous answer due to internal political compulsions and it was a sincere belief on the part of its members that the issue would be resolved in the future in a composite manner carrying forward the ethos of inclusion and equality.
However, the future is yet to resolve for itself the issue. To the contrary there are only attempts to impose Hindi upon other non-native speakers at the cost of their own language and the resultant discrimination is a reneged promise upon which this union still stands. The recent recommendations by the Committee of Parliament on Official Language is an example of dastardly incursions on the freedom of choice to speak and act by a non-hindi speaker. The very fact that such recommendations were assented to by the President without any further public discussion demonstrates this discrimination. In fact few of the recommendations goes against the express bar under Article 343 (3) of the Constitution which requires the commission to take into consideration the just claims and the interests of persons belonging to the non-Hindi speaking areas in regard to the public services. We may still be the only country where there exists no official translation of the Constitution itself in the regional languages. More than being inclusive the vision of a nation with a single language as its identity yet continues to be a festering wound for the majority of regional language speakers. In fact the monist vision of the nation, in terms of language, has been internalised by the Hindi speaking populace of the country that most are not able to think in any other terms.
A constitution cannot merely be relegated to a formal documentation of the governance structure for a nation. It reflects the collective conscience of the people who decided to provide for them a national identity. An identity that is unique and is a remnant of the forces of historical causation. For a country like India it entails the collective struggle for self-governance that transcended the parochial considerations of identity of all sorts, which however never failed to represent them equally. The civil struggle that resulted in the nationhood always possessed the morality and righteousness only imbibing within itself the principles of democratic pluralism. The Constitution of India thus a physical manifestation of the principles that the struggle represented. Call it the constitutional morality or whatever one may feel, but the apparent compromise that the assembly provided for the language question does not do justice to it. The recent move to print devanagari numerals in the latest 500 and 1000 rupees notes is one such move, whose legality otherwise is also questionable. It yet remains an unfulfilled promise for the regional languages to be accorded the equal treatment that they deserve. Fundamental to this is the recognition of the idea that a nation does not necessarily require a single language as its formative identity. From being the grandest of political experiment to a constitutional anachronism it is time for us evolve to become a inclusivist ideal that the world must strive for. Arriving at an equitable solution to the language question is an important step forward in this.

Secularism Under Section 123 (3) of the Representation of Peoples Act

The Supreme Court of India recently in a very short of period heard and delivered several judgements of wide import, several of which were heard by a large bench of seven judges. One of those judgements involving the usage of 'religion' to appeal to the voters by a candidate invited much public and media attention. The decision of the court was much lauded for its progressive interpretation of Section 123 (3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, both by the media and public at large. In a political landscape fraught with communalism and other narrow-minded considerations this seen as a welcome move to cleanse the democratic elections to ensure the survival of constitutional ideals. In all this hubris something very fundamental about this judgement has gone unnoticed by everyone. The gravity of this misconception is too large to be brushed aside easily. Though on the face of it the judgement comes out as a progressive stance taken by the judiciary towards ensuring the elections to be free of parochial sectarian considerations, the overall outcome of the interpretation offered by the Court proves to be diametrically an opposite one at that. The jurisprudential error committed have widespread ramifications, not merely confined to the corrupt electoral practices that it sought to adjudicate. The spillover effect that this judgement can have over other legitimate democratic aspirations that find its way through freedom of speech and expression is the main concern that I wish to address here.
The fundamental issue that arose for the consideration is the scope and purport of section 123(3) of the representation of people act, more specifically the scope and application of the word "his" as used in the section.

(3) The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate:
Provided that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the purposes of this clause.

Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 provides for penal actions against corrupt practices that are defined under the section. Subsection 3 of the provision defines any action by the candidate or his electoral agent using religion, race, caste, community or language to seek votes for himself or using it to the detriment of another candidate. A seemingly straightforward definition, however, gave rise to confusion on whether the appeals made is deemed to be a corrupt practise under the section only when it is of the religion to which the candidate belongs or it is a wholesale ban against the use of religion to seek the favour of the voters. The issue before the court was to decide whether it is a corrupt practice to use religion in all its forms to appeal to the voter or it must be confined only to those appeals made by a candidate on the ground of his religion. The judgement of the majority, after going through the usual rigmarole of framer's intent, the legislative history and other paraphernalia, decided in favour of an interpretation that gave the section widest possible import resulting in a blanket prohibition on the use of religion in election. The dissenting judgement assumes much significance for it espouses correct stand in this regard.
Though the intention behind the prohibition of using religion, either to seek the favour or to the detriment of another candidate is laudable, the mechanism devised should not be so restrictive as to have detrimental effect upon other constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens. While the fact remains that the broad and purposive interpretation used by the Supreme Court to justify its conclusion to give a sweeping effect to the provision itself suffers from serious defects.
In any democracy the process of election is a democratic negotiation between competing groups of interests to have their views represented in the corridors of power. A minority, be it a language or a religion, might want to voice their concern against any issue that threatens their existence, for which elections are one of the best tool provided under constitution. It is through the elections they are given a possibility to voice their views either by electing someone as their representative or by pressurising the political parties to consider their views. The conclusion of the majority, in its aim to thwart unhealthy influence of religion in elections, has completely ignored the need for sufficient latitude in the interpretation of the provision so that such legitimate concerns are not curtailed. In this light, the overt reliance of the majority view upon the purposive interpretation is not right, since the inherent conflict that the resultant interpretation has with certain fundamental rights under Constitution of India. Surprisingly the majority has brushed this aside lightly, citing Jamuna Prasad Mukhariya vs. Lachhi Ram (1955) 1 SCR 608, where the similar arguments raised upon objections raised as against Article 19(1)(a) were rejected by the bench. Being a bench of seven judges, which is a rarity on its own, this was a golden opportunity missed by the court to reverse it. In the process the subtle line of difference that must be drawn between its aim to secularise the electoral process and protecting the rights like freedom of speech and expression has been lost.
What is surprising is the fact that the past decisions of the Supreme Court, which were considered and rejected in the present case, offers the apt perspective in this regard. The Supreme Court, in the case of Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Pratap Singh Daulta (1964) 6 SCR 750, perfectly draws the subtle distinction between using such parochial considerations for ulterior motives and a legitimate use as part of electoral process that I am advocating here. The relevant passage is extracted here

“The corrupt practice defined by clause (3) of Section 123 is committed when an appeal is made either to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of a candidate’s language. It is the appeal to the electorate on a ground personal to the candidate relating to his language which attracts the ban of Section 100 read with Section l23(3). Therefore it is only when the electors are asked to vote or not to vote because of the particular language of the candidate that a corrupt practice may be deemed to be committed. Where, however for conservation of language of the electorate appeals are made to the electorate and promises are given that steps would be taken to conserve that language, it will not amount to a corrupt practice.” [Emphasis Supplied]

The Dissent

In all those rejoicing and unexpected attention paid to the majority view is the feeble voice of the dissenting judges, which was penned by Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud. The dissent strikes a distinct note in stark contrast with the majority view by providing the appropriate context in which the issue must be adjudicated to begin with. In a multicultural society like India it is impossible to divorce social institutions like religion, culture, language and other formative identities while considering such issues. Above all, if one looks at the Constitution, unlike other foundational documents around the world, it is these elements that are sought to be protected in some form or the other. This is in spite of the fact that its ultimate aim is to promote secular fabric for the society without such differences. The drafters of the constitution recognised this inner conflict but knew well that for any member of the society to become a part of the society it is vital to recognise and protect legitimate aspirations of his identity, be it cultural, religious or linguistic. This assurance by the state can only be ensured when they are given protection from any encroachment upon its safe practice while also providing a chance for them to voice their concern. It also includes the opportunity for them to be a part of the governing structure of the society, which can but be a result of social mobilisation. An oppressed class of citizenry can be mobilized only on those terms upon which they fell oppressed in the process of election; it would be silly to suggest anything otherwise. The fundamental rights in all its form were made with the sole intent of providing this to all the members of the society, in spite of the apparent conflict that it could cause with the constitutional ideals of secularism amongst others, resulting in forging of an unique constitutional identity. Reading it independent of this forged identity would render it to mere abstraction. This has been rightly pointed out in the dissent in the following words

"Social mobilisation is an integral element of the search for authority and legitimacy. Hence, it would be far-fetched to assume that in legislating to adopt Section 123(3), Parliament intended to obliterate or outlaw references to religion, caste, race, community or language in the hurly burly of the great festival of democracy."

The majority view has committed a grievous error in extending its misconceived notions of secularism here. The concept of secularism, at least in the Indian context, cannot be read to mean a society that is devoid of institutions and differences like religion and language. Here, it would mean a cohesion that coexists with such differences. It is not an anachronism in a democracy as it is portrayed in this decision.
This unfortunate decision is another addition to the series of regressive judgements that the Supreme Court has delivered in the recent times. Being a judgement delivered by a large of bench of seven judges it is going to prevail for a long time in the future. However, I put my belief upon the resilience of the Supreme Court to get back again, given its glorious history.

CAUVERY: A SERIATIM OF NEVER ENDING CONFLICTS

As the acrid tussle that is going on between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, over sharing of interstate river water, is stooping down to physical violence by a few, it has raised all sorts of debates justifying either of sides. However, in most cases they are far from being well informed or based on logic. All sorts of information are being shared in social media that possess none of the signs of reliable information. More than often, they aim at stoking the emotional chord of the people to create acrimony amongst the people from both the states. Though on more than a few occasions I wanted to give a reply to them about this I was not sure about my knowledge about the whole problem myself. A basic search into the orders that came to be passed by the Water Disputes Tribunal and the Supreme Court of India where the Tribunal’s order has been challenged enlightened me a great deal. I began with the Supreme Court’s orders dated 05.09.2016 & 12.09.2016, which opened up the doors for present issue and traced myself back to the Tribunal’s order dated 05.02.2007. The sheer size of these orders and documents is mind-boggling. For giving an idea, the order of the tribunal itself is close to 1000 pages, while the depositions and other supporting documents filed by the states party to the dispute easily cross the mark of 50,000. I must confess that I haven’t even scratched the surface when I claim that I read these orders before writing the present post. I picked only those portions of the final order passed by the Tribunal that matters the most, which in itself ran into several hundred pages. I have attempted to give a summary of the dispute from its historical origin to the present day proceedings here for an easy read. I have excluded many happenings with the sole intention of making this succinct.

History

Agreements of 1892 & 1924

The entire gamut of arguments over the rights of these states over the Cauvery water hinges upon two agreements entered into between the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu or Mysore and the State of Madras, as they were known at that point in time. The first agreement was signed in the year 1892 (available here at Page 277) to regulate many major rivers and minor streams that are common to both the states. One of the important aspects of this agreement is that Government of Mysore must obtain the previous consent of Madras Government before constructing any “New Irrigation Reservoirs” or any “New Anicut” across the rivers and major and minor streams listed in the agreement itself. If Mysore Government wanted to build any such structures, consent for which must be taken before the construction actually begins, they must provide full information regarding the proposed work to Madras Government. This might seem to be an imbalanced bargain in favour of Madras Government. However, the catch is where the subsequent clause dictates that Madras Government shall not refuse such consent except for the protection of prescriptive rights that already stands acquired and actually exists. I found this to be a very vague way of defining the rights of the Madras Government under the agreement. Since there was no prior agreement or within 1892 agreement itself that defined any of those rights. It all came down to one’s own common sense and principles of fairness to regulate it. In pursuance to this agreement, Mysore sought the permission of Madras to construct Krishnarajasagar dam across Cauvery, over which disputes arose as to the terms under which the dam was to be constructed. An arbitrator was appointed to resolve the disputes whose decision again was appealed to the Secretary of State by Madras. After prolonged negotiations, a common ground was arrived at, which resulted in the 1924 agreement (Available here at Page 347). The major result of the agreement is that it contained the terms under which Mysore Government were to construct the Krishnarajasagar dam across the River Cauvery and to provide for the extension of irrigation in both the States utilising the flows in the River Cauvery. The agreement also contained a clause stating that at the 50 years from the date of execution of the agreement certain clauses can be reconsidered based on the experience gained and of an examination of the possibilities of further extension of irrigation within the territories of respective governments.

The real disputes arose when Karnataka unilaterally decided to build irrigation projects across the tributaries of Cauvery without the prior consent of Madras as envisaged under the agreements, which are:

1. Kabini,
2. Hemavathy,
3. Harangi, and
4. Suvamavathy

Karnataka continued with the projects though the Government of India and the Central Water Commission did not clear these projects and the Planning Commission has also not approved these projects for plan assistance, the Government of Karnataka proceeded with these projects in stages from their own funds under Non-Plan expenditure.

No agreeable formula was found even after prolonged negotiations, with the Central Government playing the arbiter. With no solution on the horizon, in 1970 Tamil Nadu sought the Central Government to refer the matter to a tribunal for final resolution, under Section 3 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956.[1] It is to be noted that while all these happened in the foreground, Karnataka proceeded with the projects simultaneously. Even after a passage of a considerable amount of time, the Central Government failed to form a tribunal for the adjudication of the dispute. It was not until 04.05.1990[2] some positive movement was shown by Central Government, when Supreme Court in a Writ Petition filed by Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu Sangam[3] rapped the Union for not constituting a tribunal to resolve disputes. The Court directed the Central Government to fulfill its statutory obligation and notify in the official gazette the constitution of an appropriate tribunal for the adjudication of the water dispute, further directing that the same should be done within a period of one month. The Union Government, to comply with the order, constituted the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal through a notification dated 2^nd June 1990.

Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal

While the notification for the formation of a tribunal was only the beginning of a process that was more than a decade long. In the course of its existence, the tribunal was reconstituted a couple of times, once due to the resignation of a member and the other time due to the demise of a member. The process was so complicated and the documents involved were so voluminous that tribunal in its final decision itself notes that The total pages of depositions on behalf of different States and Union Territory of Pondicherry come to about 10,000 pages. So far, the documents and publication brought on record by the different party States in support of their respective claims ran into more than 50,000 pages. The sheer volume of paper work itself delayed the process considerably apart from the other extraneous factors like for one instance when the arguments in respect of several issues by different riparian States had virtually been concluded before the sad demise of Mr. Justice S.D. Agarwala. Because of the reconstitution of the Tribunal, the arguments in respect of those issues were again heard with Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Narain, as a new Member. After a decade and a half long process of depositions and other things, the arguments and replies on behalf of the States concluded on 21.04.2006. Thereafter, on 27.7.2006, the order was reserved. It is to be noted that the Tribunal passed certain interim orders for the sharing of water until the time the process of adjudication was concluded. Disputes arose over those orders as well between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

Interim Order

As an interim measure after the formation of the tribunal, Karnataka was directed to release 205 TMC of water into Mettur reservoir of Tamil Nadu in a water year (1^st June to 31st May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government in defiance of the orders promulgated an ordinance and refused to release the water as directed. Since negotiations to implement the order fell through in spite efforts by Central Government, President using his powers under Article 143 of Constitution of India referred the matter to Supreme Court of India with the following questions

1)      Whether the Ordinance and the provisions thereof are in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution;

2)  (i) Whether the Order of the Tribunal constitutes a report and a decision within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the Act; and

(ii) Whether the Order of the Tribunal is required to be published by the Central Government in order to make it effective;

3)      Whether the Water Disputes Tribunal constituted under the Act is competent to grant any interim relief to the parties to the dispute.

The Supreme Court gave its answer in the following terms[4]

•   Question No.1 The Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance, 1991 passed by the Governor of Karnataka on 25th July 1991 (now the Act) is beyond the legislative competence of the State and is, therefore, ultra vires the Constitution.
•    Question No.2

(i)     The order of the Tribunal dated June 25, 1991, constitutes report and decision within the meaning of Section 5 (2) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.

(ii)       The said order is, therefore, required to be published by the Central Government in the Official Gazette under Section 6 of the Act in order to make it effective.

•    Question No.3 A water disputes tribunal constituted under the Act is competent to grant any interim relief to the parties to the dispute when a reference for such relief is made by Central Government.

Final Order

Answering close to 50 questions to the disputes, the final decision was given by the tribunal and notified by the Central Government in the year 2007. The decision analysed the whole problem by going through its almost 150-year-old history and technical aspects threadbare to arrive at the final solution. The decision analyses separately the claim of each state including the claims of Kerala and Pondicherry, as riparian states. Shorn of other conclusions arrived at but are irrelevant to the present post, the decision of the tribunal in its effect finally precipitates to the following points

1. Against the contention of Karnataka, the agreements of 1892 and 1924 were held to be valid. However, the agreement of 1924 provides for review of some of the clauses after the passage of 50 years i.e. 1974. Accordingly, the tribunal reviewed and re-examined various provisions of the agreement.
2. The decision of the tribunal was to supersede both the agreements of 1892 and 1924.
3. The total utilizable quantity of water of Cauvery was quantified at 740 TMC (Thousand Million Cubic feet).
4. In case the yield of Cauvery basin is less in a distress year, the allocated shares shall be proportionately reduced among the States of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry.
5. The release of water of Tamil Nadu by Karnataka was broken down to monthly intervals during a normal year and quantity of water to be released in each the specified months were provided in the decision.

The Arithmetics of Allocation

After taking into account all relevant factors like the area of land under irrigation, soil percolation rate and various other scientific factors the tribunal allocated the available water of 740 TMC in the following manner.

			States		Total
	Kerala	Karnataka	Tamil Nadu	UT of Pondicherry
1.       Area	1.93	18.85	24.71	0.43	45.92
2.       Irrigation requirement	27.90	250.62	390.85	6.35	675.72
3.       Domestic and Industrial water requirement projected for 2011	0.35	1.85	2.73	0.27	5.20
4.       Water requirement for environmental protection	-	-	-	-	10.00
5.       Inevitable escapages into sea	-	-	-	-	4.00
6.       Share in balance water	1.51	17.64	25.71	0.22	45.08
Total	29.76	270.11	419.29	6.84	740.00
Say	30.00	270.00	419.00	7.00	726+14 =740

It is significant here to note that the specific provisions were made available to other aspects such as requirements of the industries, requirement for environmental protection apart from the irrigation requirement. The calculations provided may seem to be inequitable in pure terms. In the allocation, Tamil Nadu (419 TMC) seems to have more share than Karnataka (270 TMC). Out of the 419 TMC allocated as Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery water, 237 TMC is generated within Tamil Nadu in its basins. Hence, Karnataka is supposed to ensure the balance 182 TMC of water flow to Tamil Nadu from its dams.

Compliance with the Order

Even after the notification of the order the dust did not settle down. The acrimony between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu continues to hang in the air. Problem arose when Karnataka refused to release water as per the tribunal’s decision whenever there was a deficiency in the rainfall due to local political compulsions. The most important part of the tribunal’s decision is where the states are directed to share the deficiency due to reduced yield in a particular year (which it calls as ‘distress year’) in proportion to their allocated share. In other words, in case the rainfall is short of projections in a distress year, the allocated shares shall be proportionately reduced amongst the States of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry. Karnataka refused to comply with this principle on multiple occasions, which embittered the relationship between the states further. In fact, this is despite the fact that the tribunal specifically directed for the constitution of an inter-State forum to be called “Cauvery Management Board” shall be established for the purpose of securing compliance and implementation of the final decision and directions of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal. The Board was envisaged be under the control of the Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources. It is in spite of these directions that Karnataka refused to implement the orders.

Another important aspect of the decision is that, though in terms of pure numbers the directions of the tribunal are eminently implementable; it contains various caveats that in long term must be complied with by the states to work out a permanent solution. Rather than a mere solution involving numbers to share the water, the Tribunal in its decision has tried to work out a long-term sustainable framework for the states. The solutions suggested ranges form change in the cropping pattern to encouraging the farmers to use better water management practices to deal with the deficiencies that could arise in the future. Tamil Nadu, if one looks at the history and its stand all throughout these proceedings has maintained its strong stand, while however, has not taken any tangible steps in the gamut of sustainable solutions suggested by the tribunal.

Before the Supreme Court

Unsurprisingly Tamil Nadu took the matter to the Supreme Court for Karnataka’s non-compliance with the decision of the tribunal, where it is pending as of now. Time to time the matter was taken up by the court but no order of any tangible consequence was passed until 05.09.2016 when Karnataka was directed to release 15,000 Cu. Secs. of water for ten days as an interim measure, which resulted in the carnage that we witnessed in Bangalore. It is rather weird if one notices the manner in which the quantity of 15,000 Cu. Secs. was directed to be released. Karnataka as a goodwill gesture assured flows at the Inter-State Border, at the rate of not less than 10000 cusecs per day (about 0.86 TMC), as measured by the gauge station of the Central Water Commission as from 7th September, 2016 to 12th September, 2016. Tamil Nadu on the contrary demanded a total of 20,000 Cu. Secs. of water per day for the sustenance of crops and to protect interest of the farmers. Without any reasoning to back Supreme Court, adopting a middle ground, directed to release 15,000 Cu. Secs.

The violence unleashed by the mobs, when the Karnataka Government decided to comply with the order and release water, is well known. Citing this as a reason Karnataka moved an application seeking a modification of the previous order. The court rapped them for citing such an absurd reason, however, reduced the quantity from 15,000 to 12,000 Cu. Secs. and extending the period till 20.09.2016.[5]

An Amicable Solution

If one looks at the entirety of facts it is plainly visible that the solution provided by the disputes tribunal is well grounded and is based on scientific evidence. The decision is a result of decades worth deliberation and provides for a pragmatic solution for the problems. Unless the party states comes together overcoming parochial political considerations no solution whatsoever can be found. The Supreme Court too must not interfere much in the decision of the tribunal, for it is not competent to adjudicate the highly technical aspects involved. Moreover, any interference on its part is only going to muddle the waters further. A cautious approach must be taken by the court before arriving at any decision in this regard.

Furthermore, legally speaking there arises questions as to the very maintainability of the case filed by the parties. This aspect has been discussed in this article published in The Wire. Even otherwise, Union of India has filed an application and affidavit for impleadment in the case citing that Section 11 of the Inter State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 reads

“Neither Supreme Court nor any other Court shall have or exercise the jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to the Tribunal under the Act.”

The matter is under consideration of the Court; however, no order has been passed in this regard. It would be pragmatic for the court to maintain a hands-off approach in the dispute for the best interests of both the parties.

[1] I am deliberately leaving out many happenings that went on simultaneously to keep this short. Most them related to some proceedings before the Supreme Court over the dispute or about the background negotiations that happened in between the states.

[2] AIR 1990 SC 1316

[3] Writ Petition No.13347 of 1983 

[4]  In the matter of : CAUVERY WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL, Special Reference No. 1 of 1991 Decided On: 22.11.1991, reported in AIR 1992 SC 522

[5] Order dated 12.09.2016