Date:08/05/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2007/05/08/stories/2007050807620100.htm

Front Page

Supreme Court admits SLPs against Cauvery Tribunal award

J. Venkatesan

Petitions referred to Chief Justice for posting before a larger Bench

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday admitted three special leave petitions filed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala challenging the final award passed by the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal on February 5. The Union Territory of Puducherry, also a party to the dispute, has not filed an SLP.

Observing that important questions of law were involved in the matter, a Bench of Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Markandey Katju referred the petitions to the Chief Justice of India for posting them before a larger Bench. The Bench heard brief arguments from senior counsel Fali Nariman for Karnataka, K. Parasaran for Tamil Nadu and Rajeev Dhavan for Kerala.

In its SLP, Tamil Nadu said that the Tribunal had held valid the agreements of 1892 and 1924 (between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka). But it did not protect the existing irrigation area in the Cauvery basin of Tamil Nadu. The Tribunal reduced the area from 29.27 lakh acres to 24.70 lakh acres. It erred in granting new irrigation areas in Karnataka. It said that this determination of the areas by reducing the existing irrigated area in Tamil Nadu and allowing the proposed area to be brought under irrigation by Karnataka were contrary to the principle of equitable allotment of water of the inter-State river.

Karnataka in its SLP questioned the methodology adopted by the Tribunal in apportioning water to the three States and to Puducherry. Referring the apportionment of 270 tmcft to Karnataka, it said Tamil Nadu did not question on merit the water requirement of 465 tmcft claimed by Karnataka based on the project reports for utilisation under various schemes.

"The burden of Karnataka to supply 192 tmcft annually at the inter-State border, Billigundlu, has been fixed without any regard to 30 tmcft. Had that amount been taken into account, the burden on this score alone would have come down to 162 tmcft annually in a normal year at Billigundlu. By such a glaring error , undue burden has been placed on Karnataka during the months of June to September... " Kerala contended that the effect of the February 5 award was to effectively put a moratorium on the present and future growth and use of water by Kerala from its own basins. It said the "present projects have been stultified and no scope has been left for the future."

It said "grant of 30 tmcft of water to Kerala is entirely illusory if one takes into account that the State has very generously given 31.3 tmcft of water to the Cauvery basin area in Tamil Nadu from its own basin. If this is factored into consideration, the net award to Kerala is -1.3 tmcft... "

Questioning the methodology adopted by the tribunal in apportionment of available water, Kerala said "an arbitrary system of gauging has been worked out so that while Karnataka releases a fixed amount of 192 tmcft of water to Tamil Nadu and keeps the rest of the upper riparian water, Kerala has to release all water other than the limited amount allocated to it. This is discriminatory and unfair."