SC Verdict in Cauvery River Water Dispute - II

Click here for Part I

What is the issue?

The recent Supreme Court verdict in the Cauvery River dispute comes as a precedent in many ways.
It is imperative at this juncture to look into the multifaceted views and implications of the judgement.

What is SC's water sharing principle?

The Supreme Court declares an inter-State river like Cauvery as a ‘national asset’.
It is for the common benefit of the community as a whole.
It has emphasized the principle of equitable apportionment or the principle of equality among riparian States.
Importantly, it does not imply equal division of water.
It is rather a fair and equitable share of the water according to the needs.
In other words, an equal consideration and equal economic opportunity of the co-basin States.
Accordingly, no State can claim exclusive ownership of its waters.
None can either deprive other States of their equitable share.

What is the validity?

The water allocation arrangement will stand unchanged for the next 15 years.
The court also warned the States to not deviate from the judgment.
They are also not to use the allotted water for other than the designated purposes.

What are the implementation mechanisms?

The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal had prescribed two machineries to monitor the implementation of its order.
These are:

The CMB would monitor the storage position in the Cauvery basin and the trend of rainfall.
This is to assess the likely inflows for distribution among the States.
The CMB will have three full-time members including a chairman.
It will also consist of six part-time members.
Four of them will be from the riparian States of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and the Union Territory of Puducherry.
The CWRC is to ensure that the Tribunal's order is carried out in due spirit.

Why are CMB and CWRC important for TN?

Requirement - June to September marks the south-west monsoon season in Tamil Nadu.
Notably, Tamil Nadu gets less rainfall from the south-west monsoon than many other states.
It thus requires more water during June-September than in other months.
Control - With the Board and the Committee in place, Karnataka will lose its earlier supervisory control over the 4 Cauvery basin reservoirs.
These are Krishnarajasagar, Hemavathi, Kabini and Harangi reservoirs.
In other words, Karnataka cannot exercise the option to release water to Tamil Nadu.
Tamil Nadu will be ensured a regular release of water as per the order.

What does the verdict mean for TN?

Impact - The reduction in allocation of water will have only a marginal impact on Tamil Nadu.
This is because the quantum of reduction is small.
The reduction is less than 10% of the 192 TMC that TN ought to receive from Karnataka as per the Tribunal's award.
Groundwater - The Tribunal had noted that underground water use should not be reckoned as use of Cauvery water.
The Supreme Court, however, accounted the quantity of available groundwater in calculating the final determination of the share.
It thus calls for Tamil Nadu to bank on 10 TMC of groundwater available with it.
In other words, TN now has an increased responsibility to protect its groundwater reserves by taking adequate measures.

How does the verdict benefit Bengaluru?

The tribunal's allocation of 1.75 tmcft to the city proved to be insufficient.
Notably, it had miscalculated Bengaluru’s water needs.
It had assumed that 50% of the drinking water requirements would be met by ground water.
However, increasing urbanisation and population has been depleting and contaminating groundwater, making it unusable.
Moreover, the tribunal had accounted only the one-third of the city that falls within the Cauvery basin.
The Supreme Court has ruled out this approach.
Thus, the share of water for a basin State is for addressing the social and economic needs of its community as a whole.
With an additional entitlement of 4.75 tmcft, the verdict comes as much-needed relief for the whole of Bengaluru city.

What are the jurisdictional implications?

Article 363 - The 1892 and 1924 agreements were between the princely State of Mysore and the Madras presidency.
It pertained to the allocation of Cauvery water to regions now comprising Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry.
Article 363 of the Constitution restricts judicial review of a pre-Constitution treaty or agreement.
The court however dismisses the validity of Art 363 in the case of 1892 and 1924 agreements.
It observes that these agreements were not political arrangements but based on public interest.
Art 262 - The Centre had earlier maintained that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear inter-state river water dispute.
This is as per the Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956.
The provisions of Act restrict the Supreme Court from hearing or deciding any appeals against the Tribunal's decision.
The Centre had thus claimed the Tribunal award as final.
The Court, however, held that the remedy under Article 136 was a constitutional right.
Art 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal from any judgment, decree or determination by any Court or Tribunal.

What is the significance of the verdict?

The verdict comes as a precedent for a fair and scientific adjudicative process in water sharing disputes.
It puts an end to the delaying procedures.
Sates do not have to rush to the court for ad hoc orders to open the reservoirs during monsoon-deficit years.
It affirms a basin State’s right to its share of water on a regular basis.
The Centre should now create the legal and technical framework to implement the Tribunal’s award, as modified by the judgment.

Source: The Hindu