A limited success for Karnataka

By S.K.Ramoo

BANGALORE, APRIL 30. The Karnataka Government and the State's political leaders have very little to gloat over the recent judgment of the Supreme Court relating to raising the height of Alamatti dam.

For Karnataka, the apex court verdict has led to limited success and only partial relief. However, a redeeming feature of the Supreme Court verdict is that no restrictions are imposed on the State's on-going projects in the Krishna basin and the Andhra Pradesh Government is barred from bringing any court injunction against the construction of the Alamatti dam and UKP projects in the Krishna basin.

Another major relief to Karnataka is that the apex court has made it clear to the Andhra Pradesh Government that it could not bring legal injunction against the Hippargi Weir Irrigation scheme, Indi lift irrigation and the Narayanapur reservoir projects. Farmers belonging to the Krishna basin in Karnataka have every reason to feel gratified as no injunction can be brought against them for growing water-intensive crops such as sugarcane and scores of other wet crops. Mr. Justice H.G.Balakrishna, retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, is of the view that Karnataka should opt for a negotiated settlement with both Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. He suggested that the State Government, without further delay, should put in place a dispute resolution mechanism to amicably resolve the differences and areas of conflict pertaining to sharing of the Krishna waters. He felt the State Government should not treat it as a prestigious issue and said the constitution of a new tribunal and obtaining an award subsequently from it was time-consuming. He cited the case of tribunals constituted for resolving inter-State water disputes in the country and said they had not pronounced awards within rigid time-frames. Any adjudication by a tribunal was both a tedious and time-consuming exercise. The apex court judgment was a writing on the wall that controversies and serious differences, relating to sharing of the Krishna waters among disputant States could drag on for several years without an amicable solution in sight. The Cauvery water dispute would substantiate this point.

Another absolving feature of the Supreme Court judgment was that it had left several issues open to enable Karnataka Government to seek relief by approaching a new tribunal to be constituted by the Union Government. Mr. Justice Balakrishna sounded a warning to the Karnataka Government that it should not take any arbitrary or hasty decision to raise the height of the Alamatti dam to 519.6 meters permitted by the Supreme Court. He pointed out that it was a conditional order and the Government should first obtain appropriate clearances from agencies of the Union Government. He stated that the State Government should not give room for any legal complications such as contempt of court proceedings before starting the work of raising the height of the dam.

It is, however, a severe setback to the State on the issue of sharing surplus water under the Scheme B of the Bachawat Award. The apex court rejected the contention of Karnataka for its implementation for sharing surplus water. The Supreme Court felt that since it was not a ``decision'' of the Bachawat Commission, it could not be implemented under the provisions of the Inter- state Water Disputes Act, 1956.

Another significant observation made by the Supreme Court was that there was scope for reallocation of the Krishna waters if new data was produced by any disputant States based on improved and modern methods of water gauging. This issue could cause endless delay, if it was raised before the new tribunal to be constituted. The doors of the apex court was closed to the State for enforcing sharing of surplus water under the Inter- State Disputes Act.

Would the Vajpayee Government exhibit the required prudence to first fully explore the possibility of evolving an amicable solution through a negotiated settlement, before it ventured out to constitute another tribunal? Since the support of the Telugu Desam MPs for the survival of the NDA Government at the Centre appeared imperative, there were apprehensions that the Andhra Pradesh Government was likely to exert pressure to force a decision, which was favourable to it. The Inter-state Disputes Act had not prescribed any rigid time-frame for adjudication of disputes and their complicated and tangled disposition would take several years before verdicts were pronounced.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Regional
Previous : Rohtang pass opened for traffic
Next     : Dramatic rescue of stamp vendor