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:

1. Cauvery Management Board (CMB)
2. Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC)

• 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