<p>Appearing for Karnataka, senior counsel F S Nariman strongly countered the argument of Andhra Pradesh that the apex court judgement of April 25, 2000 was not binding. He said the SC issued the verdict under Article 131 of the Constitution after clearly holding that disputes arising from “adjudicated decisions do not constitute water disputes”.<br /><br />Nariman added: “Therefore, the observations of the SC that AP shall not take up permanent projects against surplus water has the binding effect. In view of this, new projects constructed by AP totalling utilisation of 227 tmc cannot be protected at all.” <br /><br />Karnataka and Maharashtra have sought the allocation of surplus water, but AP has opposed it, besides pleading for a review of scheme-A (pertaining to the distribution of the available water) by allocating the entire remaining water, which includes both surplus and unutilised water of Karnataka and Maharashtra.<br /> <br />AP had further pleaded for the protection of new projects on the grounds that the SC judgement dated 25/04/2000 was not binding on the tribunal. The tribunal was constituted in 2004 to adjudicate the distribution of Krishna water among the three riparian states. The shares of Karnataka, Maharashtra and AP under Scheme-A are 734 tmc, 585 tmc and 811 tmc, respectively, out of the dependable water of 2,060 tmc plus 70 tmc of return flows. <br /><br />Nariman submitted that Parliament, by introducing an amendment in 2002, had barred the reopening of a “settled dispute”. Thus, the Scheme-A allocation of 2,060 tmc at 75 per cent dependability plus return flow of 70 tmc allocated to the three states should not be disturbed, as it was a settled dispute, he submitted. <br /><br />Acid attack case<br /><br />The SC on Friday issued notice to all states and Union territories to file report on the steps initiated by them to curb acid attacks. The court said restrictions on free sale of acid was a state subject, and that a Central law could not be effective in the matter. </p>.<p>‘No judicial probe into Batla case’<br /><br />The Supreme Court on Friday refused to order a judicial inquiry into the Batla House encounter, in which two suspected terrorists and a police officer were killed a year ago, saying that any further inquiry would affect the morale of the police, reports DHNS from New Delhi.<br /><br />A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said: “There are thousands of police officials who are being killed. It will adversely affect the morale of the police.’’ Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an NGO, said the encounter had shaken the faith and confidence of a large section of a community. </p>
<p>Appearing for Karnataka, senior counsel F S Nariman strongly countered the argument of Andhra Pradesh that the apex court judgement of April 25, 2000 was not binding. He said the SC issued the verdict under Article 131 of the Constitution after clearly holding that disputes arising from “adjudicated decisions do not constitute water disputes”.<br /><br />Nariman added: “Therefore, the observations of the SC that AP shall not take up permanent projects against surplus water has the binding effect. In view of this, new projects constructed by AP totalling utilisation of 227 tmc cannot be protected at all.” <br /><br />Karnataka and Maharashtra have sought the allocation of surplus water, but AP has opposed it, besides pleading for a review of scheme-A (pertaining to the distribution of the available water) by allocating the entire remaining water, which includes both surplus and unutilised water of Karnataka and Maharashtra.<br /> <br />AP had further pleaded for the protection of new projects on the grounds that the SC judgement dated 25/04/2000 was not binding on the tribunal. The tribunal was constituted in 2004 to adjudicate the distribution of Krishna water among the three riparian states. The shares of Karnataka, Maharashtra and AP under Scheme-A are 734 tmc, 585 tmc and 811 tmc, respectively, out of the dependable water of 2,060 tmc plus 70 tmc of return flows. <br /><br />Nariman submitted that Parliament, by introducing an amendment in 2002, had barred the reopening of a “settled dispute”. Thus, the Scheme-A allocation of 2,060 tmc at 75 per cent dependability plus return flow of 70 tmc allocated to the three states should not be disturbed, as it was a settled dispute, he submitted. <br /><br />Acid attack case<br /><br />The SC on Friday issued notice to all states and Union territories to file report on the steps initiated by them to curb acid attacks. The court said restrictions on free sale of acid was a state subject, and that a Central law could not be effective in the matter. </p>.<p>‘No judicial probe into Batla case’<br /><br />The Supreme Court on Friday refused to order a judicial inquiry into the Batla House encounter, in which two suspected terrorists and a police officer were killed a year ago, saying that any further inquiry would affect the morale of the police, reports DHNS from New Delhi.<br /><br />A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said: “There are thousands of police officials who are being killed. It will adversely affect the morale of the police.’’ Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an NGO, said the encounter had shaken the faith and confidence of a large section of a community. </p>
