- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Networking Of Rivers v. In Re
Factual and Procedural Background
In a writ petition concerning the nationwide interlinking of rivers, the Supreme Court of India issued notices to every State and Union Territory. Only the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu filed affidavits in response. The Union’s affidavit recounted over two decades of planning that followed the Rao Committee report, including high-level presentations made on 5 October 2002 to the Prime Minister and on 16 October 2002 to the President of India. Tamil Nadu’s affidavit endorsed the project and appended a 2000 perspective plan prepared by the National Water Development Agency. Because no other State opposed the petition, the Court presumed nationwide consensus in favour of interlinking. At this preliminary stage, the Court recorded the parties’ submissions and scheduled the matter for further orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Union of India should constitute a High-Powered Task Force/Committee to expedite the interlinking of rivers project.
- Whether obtaining individual State consent is necessary, or if Parliament can legislate under Entry 56 of List I to implement the project without such consent.
Arguments of the Parties
Union of India
- Accepted the concept of interlinking and outlined its anticipated benefits for drought relief, flood control and water harvesting.
- Indicated that a High-Level Task Force had been proposed but not yet formed; the Attorney General sought time to report on its formation and proposed timeline.
- Recognised the need to secure State consensus but expressed willingness to examine legislative options if necessary.
State of Tamil Nadu
- Fully supported interlinking of rivers.
- Requested a Court direction compelling the Union to establish a High-Powered Committee to ensure timely completion of the project.
- Submitted the National Water Development Agency’s perspective plan, which currently contemplated completion by 2035 (Peninsular links) and 2043 (Himalayan links).
Amicus Curiae (Mr. Ranjit Kumar)
- Drew attention to the River Boards Act, 1956 as existing central legislation relevant to river management.
- Argued that legislation under Entry 56 of List I could obviate the need for individual State consent.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the absence of affidavits from other States signified tacit agreement to the interlinking project, establishing a nationwide consensus. Observing the protracted timelines (2035–2043) in the National Water Development Agency’s perspective plan, the Court expressed “distress” and deemed such delays unacceptable given the acknowledged benefits of the project.
The Bench compared the endeavour with the recently accelerated National Highways Project, suggesting that river interlinking, being complementary, should likewise be completed within a reasonable period—“not more than ten years.” The Court therefore:
- Expected the Union to adopt a “more realistic” schedule and present a revised programme at the next hearing.
- Directed the Attorney General to consider whether central legislation under Entry 56 (List I) could streamline implementation and to examine the sufficiency of the River Boards Act, 1956 for that purpose.
- Granted liberty to all parties to file additional studies or reports.
The Court acknowledged its constitutional limitation in mandating legislation but recorded the Government’s undertaking to “consider” the legislative route.
Holding and Implications
INTERIM DIRECTIONS ISSUED; MATTER LISTED FOR 16-12-2002.
Direct Effect: The Union of India must, by the next hearing, (a) establish or report on a High-Powered Task Force/Committee, and (b) place before the Court a revised, accelerated timeline aimed at completing major river-link projects within approximately ten years. The Government must also examine possible legislative measures under Entry 56 or the River Boards Act, 1956.
Broader Implications: Although no binding precedent was set, the order signals judicial impatience with administrative delay in large-scale infrastructure projects and underscores the Court’s willingness to monitor executive progress in matters of national importance.
Order
1. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court to all the States and the Union Territories in relation to the interlinking of the rivers, an affidavit has been filed by the Union of India and also by the State of Tamil Nadu. No other State or Union Territory has filed any affidavit and the presumption, therefore, clearly is that they do not oppose the prayer made in this writ petition and it must be regarded that there is a consensus amongst all of them that there should be interlinking of rivers in India.
2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, it has, inter alia, been stated that after the Rao Committee's report was received, the Government of India has been studying and planning for interlinking of rivers for over two decades. It is also mentioned in this affidavit that the Ministry of Water Resources had made a representation on 5-10-2002 before the Prime Minister on interlinking of rivers and in that presentation the Deputy Prime Minister and other senior Ministers and officers were also present. It was suggested that a High Level Task Force can be formed which will go into the modalities for bringing consensus among the States. This affidavit further states that the presentation was also made to the President of India on 16-10-2002 which also shows interest of the President of India in this project and it is in view of his broadcast to the nation on the eve of Independence Day where emphasis was laid on interlinking of rivers that has given rise to the filing of the present petition.
3. Learned Attorney General states that a High Powered Task Force, as referred in the affidavit of the Union of India, has not yet been formed and by the next date of hearing he should be in a position to inform this Court with regard to the formation of the said Task Force as well as the decision of the said Force. The Union of India has accepted the concept of interlinking of rivers and in the affidavit spelt out the benefits which will enure after the entire project has been completed.
4. The State of Tamil Nadu is the only State which has responded to the notice issued by this Court and filed an affidavit. The said State also supports interlinking of the rivers and in its affidavit has prayed that a direction be issued to the Union of India for constituting a High Powered Committee in order to see that the project is completed in time schedule. Along with this affidavit the perspective plan for implementation of inter-basin water transfer proposals prepared by the National Water Development Agency in May 2000 has been placed on record. We are distressed to note that milestone for the perspective plan indicated in the report of the agency shows that even though the pre-feasibility reports regarding the Peninsular and Himalayan Projects are already completed, the completion of the link projects ultimately will be by the year 2035 in respect of Peninsular Link Project and 2043 regarding Himalayan Link Project.
5. It is difficult to appreciate that in this country with all the resources available to it, there will be a further delay of 43 years for completion of the project to which no State has any objection and whose necessity and desirability is recognised and acknowledged by the Union of India. The project will not only give relief to the drought-prone areas but will also be an effective flood-control measure and would be a form of water harvesting which is being rightly propagated by the Union of India and all the States.
6. Learned Attorney General states that a more realistic view will be taken and a revised programme on completion would be drawn up and be presented to the Court. We do expect that the programme when drawn up would try and ensure that the link projects are completed within a reasonable time of not more than ten years. We say so because recently the National Highways Projects have been undertaken and the same are nearing completion and the interlinking of the rivers is complementary to the said project and the waterways which are so constructed will be of immense benefit to the country as a whole.
7. The report of the National Water Development Agency refers to negotiations and signing of agreements. This aspect is also adverted to by the Union of India in its affidavit when it mentioned that consent of all the States affected by the interlinking of the rivers has to be obtained. Learned Attorney General would like to consider this aspect as it is contended by Mr Ranjit Kumar that if a legislation under Entry 56 List I of the Constitution is made, the need for the consent would not arise and the Centre would be in a position to undertake the project and complete the same within a reasonable period of time.
8. It is not open to this Court to issue any direction to Parliament to legislate but the Attorney General submits that the Government will consider this aspect and, if so advised, will bring an appropriate legislation.
9. Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned amicus has drawn our attention to the River Boards Act, 1956 which has been enacted by Parliament. Learned Attorney General would look into this in order to examine whether any further piece of legislation is necessary for bringing about the interlinking of the rivers.
10. The parties are at liberty to file in court any reports or papers containing studies in respect of the said project.
11. To come up for further orders on 16-12-2002.
Court Masters
Alert