Pennaiyar river.
Credit: X
New Delhi: A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and N V Anjaria wrapped up the hearing as the Centre submitted no consensus could be arrived at amicably resolving the disputes among the riparian states.
Pennaiyar is an inter-state river.
The State of Karnataka is upper-riparian and Tamil Nadu, lower riparian. Karnataka sought one more attempt for holding the talks.
Tamil Nadu has filed a complaint under Section 3 of the Act of 1956,complaining that various projects taken by the State of Karnataka across the main Pennaiyar River and its tributary Markendeya Nadhi have prejudicially affected or are likely to affect the interests of the downstream state of Tamil Nadu and its inhabitants.
The State of Karnataka, opposing the contention submitted that out of the total water of 11.77 TMC in the catchment of Karnataka, the state has planned utilisation of 9.77 TMC, leaving 2 TMC and surplus water to the State of Tamil Nadu, which it submitted as sufficient to meet the requirements of Tamil Nadu.
In any case, Karnataka also contended that the injury complained of by Tamil Nadu is de minimis. Under section 4(1) of the Act of 1956, a tribunal can be constituted for the resolution of the inter-state water dispute, provided that the Union government is of the opinion that the dispute cannot be resolved by negotiations.
Hence, in order to facilitate negotiation, the Union government twice constituted negotiation committees. However, the dispute remained unresolved.
On January 02, 2025, the Union government submitted an affidavit stating that it desired to call a meeting at the Ministers level.
Accordingly, a meeting was called on March 18, 2025; however, Tamil Nadu declined to attend, alleging that no purpose would be served, and sought the constitution of a tribunal.
Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union government, submitted that if the riparian States have refused to negotiate, the Centre cannot call for a meeting.
On behalf of Tamil Nadu, senior advocate V Krishnamurthy, senior advocate, submitted that a time has arisen for the issuance of mandamus to constitute a tribunal since talks have failed despite two negotiation committees attempting to resolve amicably.
Senior advocate Mohan Katarki, assisted by Advocate on Record Nishant Patil, submitted that one more opportunity should be given to States to resolve the water dispute by negotiation by holding an inter-State meeting at the Ministers' level as originally suggested by the Centre in the affidavit. He also submitted that the dispute is too small to warrant any cognisance or adjudication by a tribunal. The bench, after hearing the arguments, reserved the verdict.