K'taka slams Cauvery Tribunal order on water sharing
DH News Service, New Delhi, Jul 12 2017, 0:31 IST
Police stage flag march in Mandya, on Tuesday in the wake of the commencement of the hearing of Cauvery river water sharing issue in the Supreme Court.
Karnataka on Tuesday assailed before the Supreme Court the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal's decision that relied upon the natural flow theory instead of equitable apportionment on the basis of need to determine the quantum of water for each state.
“The Tribunal in its 2007 order accepted Tamil Nadu plea that the apportionment of the water should be made in terms of the pre-constitutional agreement of 1924. The background of the agreement has to be understood as its foundation was flow of the water, while apportionment has to be on the basis of need,” senior advocate F S Nariman submitted before a three-judge bench presided over by Justice Dipak Misra.
The bench, also comprising Justices Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar, resumed hearing the civil appeals filed by Karnataka and Tamil Nadu against the Tribunal’s decision.
Nariman claimed the 1924 agreement was arrived at giving a huge of 80% of the flows to Madras for protection of the so-called prescriptive rights based on natural flow theory.
He, however, submitted that the agreements of 1892 and 1924 were expressly terminated by the British Parliament under Section 7(1) of the Indian Independence Act of 1947. The court will continue hearing on Wednesday.
“The Tribunal in its 2007 order accepted Tamil Nadu plea that the apportionment of the water should be made in terms of the pre-constitutional agreement of 1924. The background of the agreement has to be understood as its foundation was flow of the water, while apportionment has to be on the basis of need,” senior advocate F S Nariman submitted before a three-judge bench presided over by Justice Dipak Misra.
The bench, also comprising Justices Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar, resumed hearing the civil appeals filed by Karnataka and Tamil Nadu against the Tribunal’s decision.
Nariman claimed the 1924 agreement was arrived at giving a huge of 80% of the flows to Madras for protection of the so-called prescriptive rights based on natural flow theory.
He, however, submitted that the agreements of 1892 and 1924 were expressly terminated by the British Parliament under Section 7(1) of the Indian Independence Act of 1947. The court will continue hearing on Wednesday.
