SC Hearing In Krishna River Water Dispute : Telangana Accuses Maharashtra & Karnataka Of Suppression Of Material Facts

While arguing against the Interim Application filed by the States of Karnataka and Maharashtra seeking directions to the Jal Shakti Ministry to notify the final award passed by the Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for the State of Telangana, submitted before the Supreme Court on Thursday that there was material suppression of facts by both the states in their Interim Application and that they have come before the court with unclean hands.

Vaidyanathan alleged that projects worth thousands of crores were undertaken by the two states for utilisation of the Krishna River Water without obtaining necessary and prerequisite clearances from the concerned authorities.

While reading out the list of various projects initiated by the States of Karnataka and Maharashtra,  Vaidyanathan submitted, “There is material suppression. The applicant has come with unclean hands. The application does not call for any order. The balance of convenience is in favour of the continuance of the order already passed. No modification is required. All construction that they have undertaken, it is at their own cost and risk. You should not go ahead with something in the teeth of this court's orders. How can you say forget what SC has said and then go ahead?. And then you can't come back to the same SC and seek remedy.”

Vaidyanathan further argued, “Even if the award is notified today, according to the award they need to take clearances from Central Water Commission which they have not got even till now. Despite the order of this court staying the issuance of notification, they went on to spend thousands of crores. They have misrepresented as if the award is in force. Law says that the State should not have proceeded with their projects without approval. They have gone ahead with these projects without approval and in respect of those projects they want the notification…They have only got administrative sanctions and no approvals from the central government or the NITI Aayog or the Central Water Commission. No document has been filed till date.”

“They are required to obtain clearances which they have not obtained. They are talking of bringing in additional area of 5lakh+ hectares. How will they get additional water for this much land? Tribunal expressly rejects the submission of Karnataka to go beyond 65% dependability. Tribunal says AP is right in its submission that we can't go below 65%,” Vaidyanathan added.

It is important to point out that Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appearing for the State of Karnataka had argued on Tuesday that, the State of Karnataka had already invested thousands of crores to build infrastructure to utilise its share of the water. He had specifically 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.”

Stating that there was no urgency to pass an order for notification of the award, Vaidyanathan submitted, “There is no change of circumstances. This court cannot recall the order. What is the urgency? There is no urgency. The urgency is the delay in hearing the main matter. We are ready to argue the main matter.”

Vaidyanathan also told the court that, “The tribunal's order too needs to be challenged. On the merits of the tribunal's order, we contend that not all facts were brought before them.”

While pointing out the distribution of flow between the states, Vaidyanathan referred to the sorry state of affairs for the farmers in Telangana. He said, “The situation of our farmers is such that they work hard every year and at the end they don't get water for irrigation and all their hard work goes to waste. Purpose therefore of this is to ensure that all states are treated equitably. I will show that there is inequitable treatment. A lot of information has been suppressed by them.”

“Once all these projects that they have started comes up, AP will have deficit. Huge deficit. They have built small small structures to pump out the water. They have built storages to the extent of 1400 TMC. This is so much more than their share. AP will get nothing if they take all this,” Vaidyanathan added.

The Bench then inquired, “Is there an issue on the dependability aspect too?”

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh informed the bench, “Dependability is the only issue, my lords. This is the only award where three kinds of dependability has been worked out. This will drain out all the water of the river.”

Vaidyanathan then added, “The award was passed in 2010 and 2013. Why should the main matter, the appeal not be heard. That should be heard. Why should the IA be heard at this instance. We are ready to argue the main matter right away.”

Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade appearing for the State of Maharashtra replied, “Yesterday I gave you some dates, my lords. This has been pending for 19 years now...The matter can't be heard in a fortnight. The IA has to be heard first.”

Vaidyanathan again stressed the point and said, “I don’t agree to that. The main matter can be heard.”

At the end of the day, the Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and V Ramasubramanian requested the parties to mention the matter before the CJI for a next date of hearing as the arguments remained inconclusive. It may be noted that the present bench combination is a temporary arrangement as Justice Krishna Murari (who was otherwise sharing the bench with Justice Surya Kant) is at present in the Constitution Bench.

The bench also further informed the parties, “If it is specially assigned to our bench, then we would request you to be ready with the main matter too. We will dispose off the main matter too and not just the IA.”

Case Title: State of AP v. State of Karnataka And Ors. SLP(C) No. 3076-79/2014

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Previous hearing - Krishna River Originates In Maharashtra, But We Get A Pittance : State Counsel Tells Supreme Court; Questions Andhra Pradesh's Stand