Supreme Court Bench recuses from hearing Pennaiyar river water dispute

A Bench of Justices A. S. Bopanna and M. M. Sundresh on July 5 recused themselves from hearing the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over constructions on the Pennaiyar river.

A Bench of Justices A. S. Bopanna and M. M. Sundresh on July 5 recused themselves from hearing the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over constructions on the Pennaiyar river.

Justices Bopanna hails from Karnataka and Justice Sundresh from Tamil Nadu. The Bench referred to the original suit filed by Tamil Nadu against Karnataka to the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench. Justice Bopanna said he acually belongs to Madikeri from where the Cauvery originates.

The Jal Shakti Ministry referred to its short affidavit which said that a proposal to form the Pennaiyar Water Dispute Tribunal under the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 was submitted to the Cabinet Secretariat for the consideration and approval of the Union Cabinet. “The Union Cabinet is yet to take a final decision in the matter,” the Ministry informed.

In December last year, the apex court had put the Centre on a three-month deadline, extended by a month in May, to constitute a Tribunal to resolve the dispute.

In 2018, Tamil Nadu had moved the court against Karnataka’s work on check dams and diversions’ structures on the river. The State had told the Supreme Court that Karnataka had no right to utilise the waters of Pennaiyar river to the detriment of the people of Tamil Nadu. The flowing water of an Inter-State river is a national asset and no single State can claim exclusive ownership of its water, Tamil Nadu had argued.

Tamil Nadu had argued that an 1892 agreement over the river water was “valid and binding” on the party States. Tamil Nadu said that “Karnataka without furnishing the details of its new diversions or new schemes or projects and obtaining the consent of the lower riparian State, should not suo motu proceed to construct check dams / pump directly from the river or from the tanks draining into river, which would clearly amount to an infringement of the rights of the inhabitants of the Plaintiff State (Tamil Nadu)“.

Tamil Nadu had said a river even included the stream, tributaries and other streams contributing water directly or indirectly into it.