SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL

UNIVERSITY, PUNE

CASE ANALYSIS
Supervised By:

Submitted By:

Prof. Dr. Rupal Rautdesai

Akriti Shikha
LL.B(THIRD SEMESTER)
PRN-15010122014

Subject: Taxation Laws

LL.B (Three Year) {2015-2018}
Symbiosis Law School, Pune

2
Name of the Case:

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India

& Ors.
Parties to the case :

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Plaintiff

Union of India & Ors.......Defendant

Case Number: WritPetition(civil)no.183of2003

Equivalent Citation: (2006)

3 SCC 1: AIR 2006 SC 1383

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of the judgment: 2 March, 2006
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, Ruma Pal and Dalveer

Bhandar,JJ.

CONTENTS
Particulars

Introduction
Facts
Issues
Rules
Judgment
Critical appraisal
Conclusion
References

Page No.
4
5
7
9
10
12
18
19

INTRODUCTION
This is a case regarding th

FACTS OF THE CASE

Brief background:
The Mullaperiyar dam case is against the backdrop of Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection
Forum v. Union of India and Ors1, whereby in a vindication of Tamil Nadus stand on the dam,
the Supreme Court on May 7, 2014 declared unconstitutional a law passed by Kerala in 2006 to
prevent the neighboring State from raising the water level in it from 136 ft to 142 ft.

Procedural History:

A lease indenture for 999 years was made on 29-10-1886 between Maharaja of Travancore
and Secretary of State for India for Periyar irrigation works. By another agreement in 1970,
Tamil Nadu was permitted to generate power also. The Mullaperiyar Dam was constructed
during 1887-1895. Its full reservoir level is 152 ft and it provides water through a tunnel to
Vaigai basin in Tamil Nadu for irrigation benefits.

The issue began in 1979, when Kerala Government wrote to Tamil Nadu government over the
1

AIR 2006 SC 1428, (2006) 3 SCC 643 2

5
safety issue and requested to take immediate steps to strengthen the dam.
Kerala also requested the Central Government to appoint a team from Central Water
Commission (CWC) and based on it a committee was set up (Mittal committee). The
committee suggested the three level measures to strengthen the dam (emergency, medium
and long term) and decided that the height of the dam to be 136 ft (41.45 m).
After completion of the measures for strengthening of dam Tamil Nadu requested for the
increase in height of the dam to 145 ft (44.2m).
This lead to the conflict between the two states and thus the case was transferred to Supreme
Court in 2000.
On 27th February 2006, Supreme Courts allowed Tamil Nadu to raise the level of the dam
from 136 ft (41.45 m) to 142 ft (43 m) after strengthening it.
After that the Government of Kerala passed the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation
(Amendment) Act 2006 on 18th March 2006 which prohibited the raising of water level
beyond 136 ft. in the Mullaperiyar Dam and placed it in the Schedule of Endangered Dams.
Government of Tamil Nadu filed a suit in the Supreme Court on 31.3.2006 praying for
declaration of above Act as unconstitutional in its application to and effect on Mullaperiyar
Dam and restraining the State of Kerala from obstructing Tamil Nadu to increase the water
level to 142 feet.

The Supreme Court issued notice to Kerala to respond, however did not stay the operation of
the Act even as an interim measure. The Court then advised the States to settle the matter
peacefully, and adjourned hearing in order to enable them to do so.

ISSUES INVOLVED
The main issues for consideration by the Supreme Court of India in this case are:
Issue 1: Whether the suit is maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution of India.

RULES
The following rules were applied while passing the judgment:

Article 131 in The Constitution Of India 1949; Article 131 read with Article 32 of the

7
Constitution (in the context of res-judicta)

Article 262 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Article 295 of The Constitution Of India 1949

Article 363 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Article 32 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section 7(1)(b) of Indian Independence Act, 1947

Arguments in brief (petitioner/appellant and respondent side

separately to be mentioned)

JUDGEMENT

including ratio / reason for decision

CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE

JUDGEMENT
Analysis (in terms of overruling OR impact OR importance OR
linking to principles of interpretation of constitution OR current
legal system/practice etc.) (3 Marks)

CONCLUSION
In my opinion, apart from the legal and constitutional issues, inter alia, the real grievance that
concerns the State of Tamil Nadu is of not being able to increase reservoir level of Mullaperiyar
Dam to 142 ft. The concern of the State of Kerala, on the other hand, appears to be relating to the
safety of the Dam. While the State of Tamil Nadu had submitted that in the present suit they
seek invalidation of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006 that
seeks to override the judgment of this Court in the previous case, the State of Kerala had
submitted, amongst other things, that there are genuine concerns as to the safety of Mullaperiyar
Dam, and that they have also offered to build a New Dam at their cost which will ensure that
there is no fall in the water drawals of the State of Tamil Nadu, and that their law is valid.
The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution in creating a machinery to deal with the
intractable problem of resolving disputes relating to waters of inter-State rivers, and the wisdom
of the Supreme Court, for the most part, in showing judicial restraint by declining jurisdiction in
relation to water disputes (even when presented as a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of
the Constitution) and by restraining States from riding roughshod over tribunal awards (interim
and final) which were politically unpalatable has been one of the strengths of the federal system.
The occasional foray into areas which the Constitutent Assembly was wary of the courts treading
upon has led to some questionable results. The Mullaperiyar judgment is a good example of the
hazards of summary justice in the area of resolving federal issues.

Here, besides the intense political tussles, historical usage of the resource of one basin by another
basin without riparian rights, notions of surplus and deficit resource endowments in the basins
involved and deep distrust of stated intentions on either side have etched their own flow paths of
conflict. It is a classic situation where the conflicts over the resource go way beyond the river
basin boundaries to become the statement of state sentiments.

REFERENCES
The case analysis has been made by going through various Books, Judgements, WebPages, and
Journals, and are therefore mentioned below for reference purposes.

Ramaswamy R. Iyer, Mullaperiyar: a matter of judicial overreach, The Hindu, 16 May,

2014

Water

in

Mullaperiyar

Dam

near

Maximum

level

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/water-in-mullaperiyar-dam-nearmaximum-level/article2665387.ece , The Hindu 27 November, 2011, Idduki.

Mullaperiyar Dam Issue, IAS Point, http://www.gktoday.in/iaspoint/current/mullaperiyardam-issue-background/ (Last visited on 09 January, 2017 at 3:30 pm)

Stray violence in TN over Mullaperiyar dam, Express News Service, Indian Express,
http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/stray-violence-in-tn-over-mullaperiyar-dam-

issue/885146/ (Dec 8, 2011)

Forum for Policy dialogue on Water Conflicts in India (2009), The Mullaperiyar
conflict: Meeting to understand the issues and explore a common ground, SOPPECOM,

Pune
Forum for Policy dialogue on Water Conflicts in India. 2011. A Plan for Resolving
Mullaperiyar Conflict: An open letter to Prime Minister, Economic & Political Weekly,
XLVI (51): 4-5.

10