Mulla Periyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 643

Quick Summary

This case deals with the Mullaperiyar Dam. The question: can the water level go up from 136 ft to 142 ft safely, and does the Supreme Court have power to decide?

The Court said yes to raising the level to 142 ft with safety work. It held that this is a dam safety issue, not a water distribution dispute. So, the Court’s jurisdiction is not barred by Article 262 or Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act. The old 1886 and 1970 agreements still stand.

Issues

• Will raising water from 136 ft to 142 ft endanger people or harm the environment?
• Is the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction barred by Article 262 read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956?
• Does Article 363 block the Court because old agreements are involved?
• Are the 1886 and 1970 agreements still valid?

Rules

• Parliamentary supremacy in state reorganisation is complete; Parliament can fix resource division and continue existing inter-state arrangements.
• Courts have jurisdiction over dam safety/structural questions even if an inter-state river is involved.
• No fresh EIA is needed when restoring an approved design condition rather than introducing a new project.

Arguments

• Permission granted: Water level may be raised to 142 ft; strengthening measures allowed.
• Jurisdiction: The matter is dam safety, not a “water dispute”; Article 262 and Section 11 do not bar the Court.
• Agreements valid: The 1886 and 1970 agreements remain operative; cooperation between states is essential.
• Article 363: No bar; the dispute concerns ordinary land/water arrangements, open to judicial review.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the core question is structural safety of a dam, the case does not become a “water dispute” under Article 262/ISWDA. Courts can decide. Restoring an approved design level with safeguards needs no fresh EIA. Historic inter-state arrangements continue post-reorganisation under Parliamentary supremacy.

Why It Matters

• Clarifies court jurisdiction in inter-state dam safety issues.
• Balances public safety with resource use and federal comity.
• Guides when an EIA is necessary for restoration vs new projects.

Key Takeaways

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SAFE: Structure, Article, Federal, Elevation.”

1. Structure: Focus is dam safety, not sharing.
2. Article: Article 262 bar doesn’t apply.
3. Federal: Old agreements continue; Elevation to 142 ft allowed with safeguards.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can the reservoir level be raised to 142 ft safely, and does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction?

Rule: Parliamentary supremacy on reorganisation; courts retain power over dam safety; restoration to approved design needs no EIA.

Application: Evidence showed safety achievable with strengthening; the case does not involve allocation of waters; old agreements persist.

Conclusion: Raise to 142 ft permitted; strengthen the dam; jurisdiction not barred; agreements valid.

Glossary

Water Dispute

A conflict about use, distribution, or control of inter-state river waters.

Dam Safety

Engineering and operational measures to keep a dam stable and safe.

EIA

Environmental Impact Assessment—a study of likely environmental effects of a project.

FAQs

Related Cases