Karnataka on Wednesday argued that the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal did not apportion the waters of the inter-State river on the basis of “settled principles of equity”.
Appearing before a Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra on the second day of the hearing of separate appeals filed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala against the tribunal’s final order on water sharing in 2007, Karnataka’s counsel and senior advocate Fali Nariman said the water-sharing arrangement decided by the tribunal did not keep in view the equity as also the farming families.
Mr. Nariman argued that at the time of the 1924 agreement for water-sharing, Tamil Nadu was entitled to develop only 21.38 lakh acres for irrigation.
However, even as the 1924 agreement continued, the State had developed 28.2 lakh acres for irrigation utilising 566 tmc of Cauvery water.
“There was no examination, whatever, of the needs of different riparian States keeping in view the equity as also the farming families,” Mr. Nariman submitted.
‘Don’t quarrel’
“After breaching the 1924 agreement, that very State [Tamil Nadu] demanded more water using the very same agreement,” the senior lawyer added.
When Tamil Nadu objected to Mr. Nariman’s line of argument, Justice Misra observed:
“Every State is part of our nation. We do not want States to quarrel”.
Mr. Nariman continued that the “real shares” of each riparian State should be determined on the basis of needs by taking into account the contribution of water by each State to the river valley, the population of each State in the basin depending upon the waters and the culturable area of each State in the basin. The culturable area in the basin on Karnataka side is 5,522 th.ha. and that of Tamil Nadu is 2,891 th.ha.
He argued that the tribunal should have given due weight to the climatic factors, hydrological cycle, engineering factors and geographical positions in the basin while assessing the needs of each State.
Mr. Nariman said the tribunal should have first adjudicated the shares of the States by the “principles of suitable apportionment, without reference to any diversions/utilisation made by party States”.
“It would then have become apparent as to whether or not any party State had appropriated in excess of its equitable share in the waters,” he contended.
