Krishna River Originates In Maharashtra, But We Get A Pittance : State Counsel Tells Supreme Court; Questions Andhra Pradesh's Stand
While arguing the plea seeking directions to the Jal Shakti Ministry to notify the final award passed by the Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal, Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, submitted before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that lack of bona fide was writ large in the stand taken by State of Andhra Pradesh before the top Court. He was referring to the...
While arguing the plea seeking directions to the Jal Shakti Ministry to notify the final award passed by the Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal, Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, submitted before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that lack of bona fide was writ large in the stand taken by State of Andhra Pradesh before the top Court.
He was referring to the State's opposition to the final award as passed by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal in 2013 being notified.
Naphade told a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and V Ramasubramanian, “Despite getting a lion's share of the additional water, the state of AP does not want to accept the KWD Award. The award has been arrived at on the average basis. The reason why AP does not want the award to be notified is that if dependability is taken into consideration, they want the lion's share and although Krishna originates in Maharashtra we get a pittance. Lack of fairness on the part of AP is writ large.”
Arguing further, Naphade said, “State of AP hid from everyone that they have initiated several development activities. It is only after bifurcation that Telangana brought it on record. Complete lack of bonafide on the part of AP. They have hid facts from this court.”
Taking his arguments against the stand taken by the State of AP further, Naphade said, “The point is that why is Andhra so keen that this is not notified…We are in 2023. It’s been 19 years since the dispute arose. And we are asking for our legitimate share. All these years, whatever surplus is there Andhra Pradesh is enjoying. Look at the equities. This has to stop somewhere. Look at the situation. One who wins in the tribunal does not get the award and one who loses gets the benefits which they are not supposed to.”
Naphade’s arguments were three-fold. He said, “Firstly, The constitution itself contemplates that this court should not have jurisdiction in such a dispute. The Constitution itself proposes lack of judicial review for this court. Secondly, as far as this dispute is concerned, it is of a higher footing than a civil dispute because the Constitution says that a decision of a tribunal is of greater value and it should not be interfered with lightly. Finally, there is an obligation under Section 6 of the Act for the Central Government to publish the award. Any order directing not to publish it amounts to staying the operation of Section 6.”
Earlier Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appearing for the State of Karnataka, argued that the State of AP was getting much more than what it could expect from the flow of the river Krishna. He showed the flow of the river and the construction of various dams and pointed out the share of state of AP to argue that the state was not deprived of its share even in the award.
On the need to modify the award passed by the tribunal, Divan said, “This court even in Cauvery did not disturb anything apart from minor modifications for Bangalore city and some drought areas. Eventually in this case too, there may be some modification here and there.”
On the question of monitoring the execution of the award, Divan submitted, “There was a question yesterday, how do you monitor the award. There are gauges and metres at various points. That's how you can monitor it. We can have the Central Water Commission which can ensure the release based on the award.”
Divan in yesterday's hearing had argued that the State of Karnataka had already invested thousands of crores to build infrastructure to utilise its share of the water. He had submitted, “Karnataka has developed infrastructure at the cost of Rs 13,321 crore and is in a position to utilise 75 TMC feet of water out of 130 TMC feet allocated to Upper Krishna Project by the Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal-II for irrigating 60 per cent of the planned 5.94 lakh hectares. If the water is not used, the infrastructure may deteriorate on account of various reasons including siltation, and weed growth.”
"The farmers in the region are eagerly waiting for the release of water. These areas lie in the chronically drought-stricken area of the Deccan belt. The entire command area is admittedly drought-prone and out of 7 districts of the Command Area, four districts-Kalburgi, Yadgir, Raichur and Koppal are in special need of economic upliftment," Divan had added.
Senior Advocate C S Vaidyanathan appearing for the State of Telangana arguing later in the day submitted, “This application is virtually a review. Inspite of the order of this court they have issued administrative sanctions for development activities after the tribunal's orders. They got environmental clearance only in 2019. Till then they already issued 10,000 crores. They have not utilised whatever was allocated in Phase 1 and 2. The urgency they are showing now is for Phase 3.”
Commenting on the state of Karnataka, Mr. Vaidyanathan argued, “The maximum dispute that any state has with other states is Karnataka. They have boundary dispute, river dispute, all kind of disputes.”
Criticising the award passed by the tribunal, Mr. Vaidyanathan submitted, “Award proceeds on the basis that whatever the first tribunal had done, that protection of existing areas should continue. Even the first tribunal's protection was given because Maharashtra had special needs.”
Vaidyanathan then pointed out the grim situation that the State of Telangana found itself in because of the award passed by the tribunal. He said, “Apportionment of water is done on equitable basis based on needs. This has been laid down by several judgments. Even today I have only got 90 TMC out of 800+ TMC due to me. There is no provision for deficit supply in the award. There are various deficiencies in the award. I will show that.”
Vaidyanathan further argued, “I will make good the proposition that if a new state comes in and that state's interest are not taken into consideration then the order does not hold. The order of the tribunal is injustice to the state.”
“I will demonstrate prima facie balance of convenience. Today they want to preempt and want the notification to be issued. I am ready to argue the main matter from today not even tomorrow. If for 11 years that order has continued, what is the ground for modification”, Vaidyanathan added.
The hearing will continue tomorrow.
The Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal had passed its final award in November 2013.
Case Title: State of AP v. State of Karnataka And Ors. SLP(C) No. 3076-79/2014