Beyond the Alamatti verdict

IN THE IMMEDIATE context, a positive outcome of the Supreme Court's verdict on the protracted dispute over the sharing of the Krishna waters is that the construction of the Alamatti dam, which remained stalled because of a court injunction in the wake of a legal row between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh over its planned height, can get going. Andhra Pradesh has reason to be pleased that the court has pegged the dam height at 519.6 metres, rejecting Karnataka's plea for raising it to 524.25 metres, and if its Chief Minister, Mr. N. Chandrababu Naidu, hailed the decision as a ``vindication'' of its position, it is quite understandable. What is significant is that the apex court, even while holding that the award of the Bachawat Tribunal placed no restriction on the Alamatti dam height, has gone along with, if not gone by, the conclusion of an expert group (a political initiative taken in 1996 by the United Front Government at the Centre) in determining the height at 519- plus metres; the panel had said the annual requirement of 173 tmcft of water contemplated under the Upper Krishna Project (of which Alamatti is a component) would be adequately taken care of by a dam of this height together with the Narayanpur storage.

Although the Alamatti dam related aspects of the judgment have hogged the limelight, they are not by any means the only substantive part of the apex court's pronouncements. In fact, what the five-member Constitution Bench has handed down is by far the most comprehensive and authoritative of the court's opinions on various contentious issues raised in respect of the Bachawat Tribunal's award over the years. For instance, it has ruled that the apportionment of water among the riparian States was not project-specific (as contended by Andhra Pradesh), that the Scheme `B' framed by the Tribunal (for the sharing of surplus water) was not a ``decision'' and therefore not enforceable (as Karnataka would insist) and that Andhra Pradesh, as the lower riparian, had the liberty to use the `remaining water' (within the total allocation of 2060 tmcft) in any year without claiming any right to it. On the face of it, the ruling on `remaining water' may look favourable to Andhra Pradesh, but the court's observation that such use ``should not be by way of permanent construction of large projects...'' could spell trouble for it and even some of its ongoing projects may become vulnerable on that count. In effect, the court has placed the different provisions of the water-sharing arrangement as laid down by the Tribunal in proper legal perspective, even as it has refrained from seeking to adjudicate whichever contentious matter was in the nature of a ``water dispute'', something that the judiciary is precluded from deciding under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act.

Given that the Bachawat Tribunal's award itself is open for review any time after May 31, 2000, the importance of the Supreme Court's verdict is somewhat restricted to the extent that it dealt primarily with issues pertaining to that award. In a way, this factor and the readiness of the Centre to appoint a fresh Tribunal for the purpose, should any of the riparian State raise a dispute and seek adjudication, would appear to have weighed with the apex court in suggesting to Karnataka and Maharashtra that some of the issues they had raised could appropriately be taken up with the proposed adjudicatory body. Therefore it may not be long before a fresh crop of disputes, with much-too- familiar unseemly political overtones and chauvinistic posturings, surfaces. There will in fact be no end to such nationally detrimental wrangles unless the political class across the country pledges itself to making a success of the negotiation option, while seeking to resolve differences over the sharing of vital natural resources, particularly river waters. Even the higher judiciary has not unoften sought to drive home this message to the disputant States by its directions prompting governmental or political initiatives for a negotiated settlement.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : For a Bay of Bengal community