No state has exclusive ownership of river waters

New Delhi, February 16 

The Supreme Court today raised the 270 thousand million cubic feet (tmcft) share of Cauvery waters for Karnataka by 14.75 tmcft and reduced Tamil Nadu’s share while compensating it by allowing extraction of 10 tmcft groundwater from the river basin, saying the issue of drinking water has to be placed on a “higher pedestal”.

The court, which referred to international rules of Helsinki, Compione and Berlin on equitable distribution of river waters passing through various nations, said that river was a national asset and no state could claim “exclusive ownership” of such waters.

(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)

“The waters of an inter-state river passing through the corridors of riparian states constitute national asset and cannot be said to be located in any one state. Being in a state of flow, no state can claim exclusive ownership of such waters or assert a prescriptive right so as to deprive the other states of their equitable share,” a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said.

The Bench justified the increase in Karnataka’s share taking note of the principle on drinking water and the “global status” acquired by the state capital and the IT city of Bengaluru. “Drinking water requirement of the overall population of all the states has to be placed on a higher pedestal as we treat it as a hierarchically fundamental principle of equitable distribution,” it said. The Bench gave six weeks to the Centre to formulate a scheme to ensure compliance of its 465-page judgment, modifying the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT) award, and made it clear it would not extend time on any ground. 

It said the order on Cauvery water allocation would continue for the next 15 years. Karnataka would now have to release 177.25 tmcft of water at the inter-state border with Tamil Nadu.

The Bench rejected the Centre’s contention that the court should not issue any direction, keeping in mind the bar imposed under Article 363 which deals with restrictions on courts in interfering in disputes arising out of “certain treaties, agreements”.

The apex court had on December 9, 2016, upheld the maintainability of appeals filed by riparian states, saying it had the “jurisdiction to decide the parameters, scope, authority and jurisdiction of the tribunal”.

The court had rejected the Centre’s objection that the CWDT award amounted to a final decree and it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals against the award. — PTI

‘Can’t be said to be located in one state’

The waters of an inter-state river passing through the corridors of riparian states constitute national asset and cannot be said to be located in any one state. — Supreme Court Bench