River water dispute

Its a fact that the act provides that the award is binding and no appeal lies to SC.
But, its a fact, that, the SC can itself give special leave to certain cases, though they may be barred by law to come before the SC!
There are few such exemptions, like the Army tribunal, where the jurisdiction of the SC is barred. But, SC has time and again clarified that, it has the inherent power to give special leave to certain cases and hear them!
Disputes outside this ambit are not subject to Clause (1) of Article 262 and therefore the Supreme Court cannot be subject to the limitation provided under Clause (2). This view was laid down by a 3 judge bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu when the appellant state raised the contention that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case as a result of Article 262 read with Section 11 of the Inter-state Water Disputes Act, 1956.Rejecting the argument, the Court held that the exclusion of jurisdiction was only limited to the use, distribution or control of the waters of any inter-state river or river valley as envisaged under Article 262 and in the matter presented the Court was called upon to examine and interpret a statutory enactment and it was well within the powers of the Court to do so.


@what about Suo moto in river water dispute?
'suo motto' is a tool to be used for any purpose!!
Imagine suo motto is like your arm: Now if i talk about anything, you can ask: "will u use your arm sir or use a spoon?! "
I can use my arm for anything, ranging from picking food, to writing!! Thus, suo motto doesnt depend on the 'subject', it depends on my need!!!

So, the SC can take it up suo moto or on application by anybody!!

Grounds for Removal of judges?

 'incapacity' or 'misbehavior' is not defined in the constitution! When something is not codified, then it is open to dispute! And who can solve the dispute?
Judiciary. So, the judiciary has to decide if an act of a judge is 'misbehavior' or if he/she is 'incapacitated'.
The procedure is explained in an Act.Its called as Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968.

That act provides for forming another bench of judges who will inquire and decide if there has been an 'incapacity'!
And then that report will go the parliament which can impeach the judge!
No judge can be arrested for anything he does in his official capacity!!
The impeachement process can start only based on the two issues, and yes , the parliament has to power to raise one issue if the other one has failed to ge majority!


@What if he murders anyone? then will they be first removed from the post and then arrested?
Like in the higher level. they will be impeached first and then removed. so what about the judges in the lower level?
if they murder, then they did not do that in official capacity! It was done in personal capacity, so the police can arrest them! They don't enjoy the immunity the judges of the higher judiciary enjoy!!