Universal Coaching Centre -

Enter your keyword

8053+ OFFICERS SERVING THE NATION UNIVERSAL COACHING CENTRE Let's join hands together in bringing Your Name in Elite officers list. JOIN US 25 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE MEET NEW FRIENDS AND STUDY WITH EXPERTS JOIN US Nothing is better than having friends study together. Each student can learn from others through by teamwork building and playing interesting games. Following instruction of experts, you and friends will gain best scores.

ULP Click here! Click here! Classroom Programme NRA-CET Test Series
Click here ! Org code: XSHWV

post

SC QUESTIONS MAINTAINABILITY OF TELANGANA PLEA ON POLAVARAM PROJECT

Why in the News?

  • Judicial scrutiny: The Supreme Court of India raised doubts over the maintainability of Telangana’s writ petition against the Polavaram-Banakacherla/Nallamalasagar Link Project, questioning whether proper environmental clearance had been obtained.
  • Inter-state dispute: The case involves competing claims over Godavari river waters between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, highlighting the need for a comprehensive environmental impact assessment.
  • Next hearing: The matter has been adjourned by a week for further consideration of the project’s compliance with the Forest Conservation Act and other environmental regulations.

COURT’S OBSERVATIONS AND LEGAL POSITION

  • Maintainability issue: The Bench said a suit under Article 131 would be a more appropriate remedy than a writ under Article 32, emphasizing the importance of proper environmental jurisprudence.
  • Nature of dispute: Identified the matter as essentially an inter-state water dispute, requiring consideration of ex post facto environmental clearances.
  • Constitutional scheme: Court stressed that where a specific remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should be exercised with restraint, in line with principles of environmental democracy.
  • Tribunal route: Suggested that disputes over water sharing are better addressed through tribunals or original suits, considering the polluter pays principle.
  • Judicial caution: Emphasised institutional discipline in handling federal disputes and the need for adherence to environmental jurisprudence.

TELANGANA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE PROJECT

  • Project scope: Telangana alleges diversion of up to 200 TMC of Godavari water, exceeding earlier approvals and potentially impacting the Coastal Regulation Zone.
  • Original sanction: Claims only 80 TMC was earlier permitted for transfer to the Krishna basin, raising questions about retrospective environmental clearances.
  • Impact concern: Fears reduction in Telangana’s water share under existing tribunal awards, potentially affecting the state’s pursuit of a pollution-free environment.
  • Relief sought: Requested restraint on DPR preparation, tenders, and execution of the project pending proper environmental impact assessment.
  • Regional impact: Project aims to supply water to Rayalaseema’s drought-prone regions, necessitating careful consideration of the precautionary principle.

ARTICLE 131 – INTER-STATE DISPUTES

● Constitutional provision: Article 131 grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in Centre–State or inter-State disputes, including those related to environmental clearances.

● Exclusive domain: Applies where disputes involve legal rights of states, often intersecting with environmental jurisprudence.

● Water conflicts: Commonly invoked in inter-state river water disputes, requiring consideration of the EIA Notification.

● Federal balance: Ensures resolution within the constitutional framework, promoting environmental democracy.

● Judicial principle: Reinforces cooperative federalism and institutional clarity in environmental matters, as seen in the Vanashakti judgment.