ISSUE:
Whether the raising of water level of the reservoir from 136 ft. to 142 ft. would result in jeopardising the safety of the people and also degradation of environment?
Whether the jurisdiction of this Court is barred in view of Article 262 read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956?
Whether Article 363 of the Constitution bars the jurisdiction of this Court?
Whether the agreements from 1886 and 1970 are still legally valid?
RULE:
Parliamentary supremacy in state reorganisation matters is absolute and overrides state legislative powers - The Court used this principle to establish that when Parliament reorganizes states, it has complete authority to make provisions about division of resources and continuation of existing agreements between states, which cannot be challenged based on state powers.
Courts retain jurisdiction over dam safety and structural disputes even when they involve interstate water bodies - The Court applied this to establish its authority to hear the case, holding that while interstate water distribution disputes may be barred, issues of dam safety remain within judicial purview.
Environmental impact assessment is not required when activities restore previously approved conditions rather than create new interventions - The Court used this principle to permit raising the water level to 142 feet since this was within the dam's original design parameters and would actually benefit the local ecosystem rather than harm it.