With both Houses of the legislature unanimously passing a resolution deciding to reserve water in four reservoirs in the Cauvery basin for drinking purposes, the state government has found a way to wriggle out of a tight situation.
But the matter has not ended with the Supreme Court likely to take up the state’s non-compliance with its interim order directing Karnataka to release 6000 cusecs of Cauvery river water to Tamil Nadu, on September 27.
Along with the civil appeal challenging the Cauvery River Disputes Tribunal (CRDT) order dated May 2007, h Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have filed many interlocatory applications (IA).
In this hour of crisis, former water resources minister and BJP leader Basavaraj Bommai feels the Union Government must bring all facts before the three member bench of the Supreme Court which deals with the main petition and also seek an appropriate direction from the bench on the constitution of Cauvery River Management Board (CRMB). Excerpts from an interview.
What are the option left for Karnataka to defend its case before the Apex Court ?
The issue pertains to implementation of the Cauvery Tribunal order in a distress year. The Supreme Court has given orders on an adhoc basis and has differed with the order of Cauvery Supervisory Committee (CSC) which had ordered release of 6000 cusecs daily. In fact CSC is a creation of the Supreme Court itself.
I feel the Supreme Court, should rely on ground realities by sending its own team to assess the situation and base its order on the needs of both states, which will be a pragmatic approach. Moreover the CSC was created by a three member bench of the Supreme Court and it has the support of Central Water Commission (CWC) and data and technical experts for its aid. We should challenge the constitution of Cauvery River Management Board (CWMB) before the court.
Why did the Supreme Court not consider the submission put forth by our legal team ?
Our submission went wrong in the first place itself, we agreed before the court to release 10,000 cusecs of water to TN as a goodwill gesture and paid a heavy price for it. When in 2012, we agreed to release 10,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu, our storage in the reservoirs was 81 tmc feet, but when our counsel Fali Nariman agreed to release 10,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu, our storage capacity was 47 tmc feet. Our argument should have been that when our storage was 81 tmcfeet, you agreed to 10,000 cusecs of water, so based on the present storage, the quantum should be cut down to 5000 cusecs. Moreover while challenging the Supervisory committee order, quoting chapter 8 and 9 of tribunal order led to constitution of CWMB.
Why has the court ordered suo motu constitution of Cauvery Water Management Board (CWMB) ?
Our legal team argued that Cauvery Supervisory Committee (CSC) has no power to pass an order to direct Karnataka to release 3000 cusecs of water. Then the court asked what should be done to resolve the crisis.
Our Advocates quoted chapter 8 and 9 of the Tribunal order, which deals with constitution of Cauvery Water Management Board to implement the tribunal order made in 2007. It ultimately made the Supreme Court direct the Centre to constitute CWMB.
Our counsel's submission is supposed to be the stand of Karnataka, so the Court ordered creation of CWMB. The order directing constitution of CWMB goes against the order of the three member bench of the Supreme Court, which had constituted CSC in place of CWMB as an interim measure.
What measures should Karnataka take in a distress year?
The distress situation does not happen all of a sudden. It starts with the pre-monsoon phase. If drought prevails for two consecutive years, the monthly schedule of release of water can be modified, it was dealt with in the Tribunal order. We should put forth this argument before the court. Once distress develops, we should first approach the Cauvery Supervisory Committee.
In the past, Prime Ministers had intervened, former PMs, P.V. Narasimha Rao, A.B. Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh intervened whenever a crisis happened. Why has Prime Minister Narendra Modi declined to intervene now inspite of the state's request?
The issue is totally different now, when Narasimha Rao was PM, the Supreme Court had directed the Centre to resolve the crisis. When Manmohan Singh was the Prime Minister, the Supreme Court developed a mechanism saying that Cauvery River Authority (CRA) should be headed by the Prime Minister. Moreover, at that time, the tribunal order had not been notified. Now, the Tribunal order has been notified and CRA has been abolished by the Supreme Court, so there is no room for interference by the PM.
According to your arguments, intervention of the Prime Minister is not at all necessary?
Since there is no CRA, the PM cannot intervene. The Interlocatory Application is still pending in the Supreme Court. How can the PM intervene while the Court is hearing the matter?
Then what should be the role of the Central government now?
The Central government should protect the interests of riparian states as per law and should bring all facts before the bench on the next date of hearing. Also the Central government should seek a direction from the three member bench which is dealing with the SLP.
Why did your party boycott the crucial all-party meeting, convened to discuss the issue? Does it not send a wrong message to the public?
Right from the beginning, we have opposed the release of water. In the first meeting, we suggested that a review petition be filed against the order of the Supreme Court. But the state government has not filed the review petition, they decided to file a modification petition. The government did not heed our advice, so we boycotted the second meeting.
Is it necessary for the government to take all suggestions given by the Opposition?
Based on our experience in the past, we had given suggestion to the government. We had earlier suggested not to release water when the SC directed release of 15000 cusecs of water to TN. If the same decision was taken earlier, the government could have saved 15 tmcfeet water.
Do you still feel your decision to boycott the all-party meeting called by the CM was right?
It's because of the adamant stand of the state government which did not consider our advice that we decided to boycott the meeting. The attitude of the state government compelled us not to participate in the meeting. It is no great sin on our part to boycott a meeting, ultimately, the decision taken is more important.
What are the legal hurdles preventing the Centre from intervening in inter-state water disputes?
Section 3 of the Inter State Water Disputes Act says once disputes regarding sharing of water arise and either of the riparian states approach the court for constitution of a Tribunal to adjudicate, then ball goes into the court of the Tribunal. This makes the dispute drag on and on. The Act should be amended, instead of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, a River Basin Development Act should be in place based on the requirements and needs of water in future. Some mechanism should be devised by the Centre and introduced in the Act to make it possible to intervene whenever necessary.
What are the implications if the Centre constitutes Cauvery River Management Board?
The Centre can take control of our dams, it can even take control of Mettur dam(in TN). We had challenged the Tribunal order saying the constitution of the Board is not in order. Taking over the properties of the state (reservoirs) , violates fundamental rights. The Cauvery River Management Board is not a permanent solution to the problem, I feel the Constitution of Cauvery Monitoring Board is the best way out. In the Tungabhadra basin, the entire project was jointly done by Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. If the Board is constituted, monitoring can start from June itself.
