Introduction:
- The
peninsular rivers as one must have studied in geography, are depended on
the annual monsoon. So their flow is dependent on the success/failure of
monsoon.
- This
year the monsoons were not even close the expectations.
- So
the states that have been sharing the river waters have come under extra
pressure to save their farmers, among which, the already heightened battle
is the Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
- This
issue is definitely not new and has been raging for more than 5 decades
now.
Terms:
Tmcft
|
Thousand million cubic feet. Unit of volume which means total
water released.
|
Cusecs
|
Cubic feet per second. Unit of flow which means the water flow
released continuously.
|
History of the issue:
- The
river Cauvery has been shared by the states under 2 agreements – The
Interstate agreements of 1872 and 1924.
- All
was well, till the late 1960s when Karnataka wanted to build 4 new
reservoirs in the tributaries of Cauvery.
- The
Planning commission did not approve to give funds and neither did the
Central government.
- This
diverted some of the water of Cauvery, due to which Tamil Nadu protested.
- It
directed the Centre to create a Tribunal.
- But
Karnataka state went ahead with the building of the reservoirs with its
own funds. These reservoirs were
But since
the Centre did not create one, Tamil Nadu moved the SC to order the centre. The
tribunal was finally formed in 1990.
Why confusion over creation of Tribunal?
Article 262
|
Neither the Supreme Court nor
any court shall exercise jurisdiction in water dispute between states.
|
But the
Supreme Court commented that it can however order the Centre to create a
Tribunal which it is supposed to do so under the Art.262 and the Interstate
Water Disputes Act, 1956.
Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT)
- To cut short to
the story, the CWDT came up with its final order in 2007, giving
Region
|
Water (tmcft)
|
Tamil Nadu
|
419
|
Karnataka
|
270
|
Kerala
|
30
|
Puducherry
|
7
|
- Both
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu contested this CWDT order in the Supreme Court
via Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), which are still pending.
- This
has prevented the Centre from publishing the CWDT award in the gazette (which
means it will implement the award).
- In
the meanwhile, because of the long time the CWDT took to give its
decision, it gave an interim order in 1991 itself for the riparian states.
- To
implement this interim measure, the Cauvery River Authority (CRA) and the
Cauvery Monitoring Committee (CMC) were formed.
2012 and the final showdown
- Among
all this drama, confusion and power plays there emerged a new problem.
- The
CWDT did not come up with a formula for situations when the flow in
Cauvery was low (meaning a drought kind situation).
- This
is why the issue has flared up so much in 2012 as this year Karnataka has
refused to release water on this basis.
Karnataka side
|
Tamil Nadu side
|
1.
Low monsoons, so low flow in Cauvery. Water
not enough for their own farmers.
2.
Very unstable political situation in
Karnataka with 3 CMs changing.
3.
So Cauvery being a very sensitive issue
nobody wants to give it up easily.
|
1.
Samba crop growers are mainly dependent on
Cauvery river. Irrigation is the main water source in the area. So their
livelihood in danger.
2.
The government not wanting to notify the
final order of CWDT is also agitating, as there seems to be no end to the
problem.
3.
The government replied that it will notify
the CWDT tribunal’s award by December end. But it has not done so. The reason
is still not known (maybe even political). TN was wishing that there could be
some relief if the gazette notification comes (in 2007 itself) but even after
the Tribunal’s award the issue has been politically and legally entangled for
the past 5 years. So TN’s position is in a deadlock.
|
- Amid
this the Supreme Court had asked the 2 Chief Ministers to meet up and try
to finalize on the issue but that too failed.
- Supreme Court also asked the Central government whether it had any intention to publish the CWDT tribunal award for which the Centre has replied that it will publish the award by December end but it has not done it.
Supreme Court asked the
Centre to notify the award:
Supreme
Court directed
the Centre to notify the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
(CWDT) dated February 5, 2007. It rapped the government for abdicating its responsibility
in not notifying the award as per the mandate of the Inter State River Water
Disputes Act. When Additional Solicitor General Harin P. Raval sought further
time for the Centre to decide whether to notify the ‘final decision’ or not, a
Bench of Justices R.M. Lodha, J. Chelameswar and Madan B. Lokur rejected the
plea. The court ordered the government to notify the final award on or before
February 20.
Earlier, Mr. Raval
said the Karnataka government had communicated to the Government of India that
it would need orders from the functionaries concerned and communicate the same
to the Centre but it had not been done so far.
Justice Chelameswar
told Mr. Raval: “Central government has abdicated its responsibility.
Central government is not here to facilitate an agreement between the parties
when they themselves have told this court that they have no objection for
notifying the award.”
Justice Lokur asked
Mr. Raval, “Suppose no decision comes from Karnataka for one year, will
Central government not take any decision. Central government is supposed to
take action in furtherance to Supreme Court orders.”
Justice Lodha told
the ASG: “Don’t abdicate responsibility. Sorry, this is not the way the
government should function. There is no justification for the delay even after
the disputing States had stated they have no objection for notifying the award.
The disputing States have not approached this court resiling from their stand.
While so, Central government has no justification to delay the notification.”
Justice Lokur said
that “when something is stated in the court, there has to be some sanctity for
it, we proceed on that basis.”
The Bench, in its brief order, said that, the
final decision was given by the CWDT on February 5, 2007. The final decision
has not been notified so far. On January 4, 2013, this court noted the
agreement of concerned States that they did not have any objection to the final
decision by CWDT being notified without prejudice to their rights and
contentions raised in the pending appeals. This court also noted the statement
of Mr. H.P. Raval, Additional Solicitor General that the final decision by the
Central government for publication is expected by January 31, 2013.
Due to the scolding
from the Supreme Court, with no other options left, Central Government notified
the Cauvery Tribunal Award on Feb 19, 2013. It created much oppose in
Karnataka. While Tamil Nadu (particularly the present Chief Minister, Ms.
Jayalalithaa who strongly fought the rights for her state in the Supreme Court
right from 1991) made some rejoices moment. But now, Tamil Nadu must look into
dig the new canals, and renew the existing canals and irrigation systems in
full swing.
No comments:
Post a Comment