Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

SC verdict on Cauvery water dispute likely on Friday

Sentinel Digital DeskBy : Sentinel Digital Desk

  |  16 Feb 2018 12:00 AM GMT

New Delhi, Feb 15: The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce on Friday its verdict on a batch of cross petitions by Tamil du, Kartaka, Kerala and Puducherry challenging the 2007 Cauvery River Water Disputes Tribul award. The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar had reserved the verdict on September 20, 2017 after hearing the matter for 29 days spread over eight months.

Both Tamil du and Kartaka had approached the top court soon after the 2007 award was announced, assailing it on several counts.

The Centre had opposed the top court adjudicating over the Cauvery River Water Dispute Award, contending that the appeals by the three states and the union territory of Puducherry were not maintaible as under the Constitution’s Article 262 read with Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, the top court was barred from hearing the appeals. However, the top court had said: “Prima facie we feel that Article 262 does not say that (river water) tribul award is so sacrosanct that Supreme Court can’t look into it.” The Cauvery River Water Dispute Tribul was set-up on June 2, 1990 and gave its fil report on February 5, 2007, which was challenged before the top court by all the three states and the union territory.

Kartaka had told the court that 1924 agreement between the then British province of Madras and the princely State of Mysore could not be the basis of sharing Cauvery river water between the present day Kartaka and Tamil du and present day needs must taken into account. It said that water sharing was decided on the basis of 1890 and 1924 agreement without determining equitable share and its apportionment. However, Tamil du on the other hand had contended that Tribul’s award was erroneous as it allocated 192 TMC of water taking into account cultivation of just one crop as against the prevailing two crops in the State. (IANS)

Next Story