Tamil Nadu joined counterparts Karnataka and Kerala to oppose the Centre’s stand that the court was barred from entertaining the appeals as the tribunal’s award was final and binding on the three neighbouring States, as per the parliamentary law of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. “No ordinary parliamentary law can stop the Supreme Court from exercising its constitutional power to hear appeals. Judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution,” senior advocate Shekhar Naphade argued. The Bench may refer the appeals to a larger Bench of at least five judges of the Supreme Court. The Bench further reiterated its order to Karnataka to release 2,000 cusecs of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu till further orders. On focus during the hearing were several provisions of the 1956 Act, most prominently Section 6 (2), which mandates the Centre to frame a scheme for implementation of the tribunal award. The scheme, once prepared, would be placed before both Houses of Parliament for approval. Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, for the Centre, submitted that the provisions of the 1956 Act coupled with Article 262 (2) of the Constitution excluded the Supreme Court from hearing or deciding any appeals against the Cauvery Tribunal’s decision. Quoting past judgments, Mr. Rohatgi argued that once the Cauvery tribunal pronounced its verdict on the distribution, the various doors to the Supreme Court automatically closed. He submitted that no writ petitions in the name of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32 could be filed nor could original suits invoking the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction to try inter-State disputes be filed. “If Article 131 and Article 32, which is the heart and soul of the Constitution, cannot be invoked to move the Supreme Court against the tribunal award, then there is an automatic bar on filing appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution,” Mr. Rohatgi argued. Mr. Naphade submitted that Section 6 (2) of the 1956 Act only provided for the procedure to be followed by the Centre post the tribunal award. It is not that mere procedure in a statute can negate the Constitution-given powers of the Supreme Court to entertain appeals. Pooh-poohing the claims of the Centre, Karnataka, represented by senior advocate Fali Nariman, had submitted that Parliament cannot restrict the Supreme Court.