Google the history of Dharwad district, the name of Mohan Katarki, a Supreme Court lawyer emerges along with stalwarts like musician late Mallikarjun Mansoor and Infosys Foundation chairperson Sudha Murthy.
Mr Katarki is is part of the legal team fighting water dispute cases in the Supreme Court and the tribunals concerned on Karnataka’s behalf. Starting his career in 1985, Mr Katarki specialises in water law and now represents four states in water disputes.
In an interview with Deccan Chronicle, he spoke about the Mahadayi water dispute and the controversy surrounding the charge that lawyers had not performed to their potential while fighting the state’s cases. Here are excerpts of his interview.
Mohan Katarki, Mahadayi lawyer
How do you think people should view the interim report of Mahadayi River Dispute Tribunal?
The July 27 interim order has disappointed Karnataka. However, the interim order does not come to a final conclusion on any question against Karnataka. The Tribunal can come to a different conclusion, after the examination of evidence which will be placed before it during the trial.
The Tribunal rejecting outright Karnataka’s argument for water gave rise to the suspicion that Karnataka’s legal team had underperformed. What is your reaction?
Karnataka tried to rely on the broad contours of the case to justify its demand for allocation of 7.00 tmc by an interim order. However, the Tribunal disagreed on this fundamental approach. If Karnataka had gone into details on feasibility etc. and lost the case, then, it would have adversely affected the main case.
Barring Krishna water dispute, Karnataka lost all cases related to inter-state water disputes. The legal team claims that in the Cauvery case, Karnataka got partial relief. If you convert this partial relief into water allocation, in reality, the amount set aside for Karnataka is insufficient both for agriculture and drinking water. So from a farmer’s point, it is as good as losing a case..
The present legal team led by F.S. Nariman, Senior Advocate has been defending the state in three main water disputes viz., Cauvery, Krishna and Mahadayi. In Cauvery, Karnataka succeeded in reducing the demand of Tamil Nadu from 380 tmc to 192 tmc at the inter-State border at Biligundlu. However, the State partly lost the case, because it could not reduce it by another 80 tmc. The allocation made to Karnataka by the Tribunal is 270 tmc besides the surplus water available in the basin after meeting 192 tmc at the border in a normal year.
In the Krishna Water Dispute, Karnataka succeeded fully in getting 911 tmc including its demand for building a high Almatti dam. No appeal was preferred by the State. However, in Section 5(3) proceedings, the Tribunal has incorporated Clause-IX(A) on the manner of utilization of water. Karnataka has challenged this aspect in the SLP filed before the Supreme Court.
Is losing the interim application as good as losing the Mahadayi case? Is Goa’s argument on environment degradation on account of Karnataka lifting water scientific and logical?
In Mahadayi water dispute, Karnataka placed its case in the IA on broad facts viz.,
wastage to sea. The Tribunal has dismissed our request on the ground that natural equilibrium cannot be disturbed "at this interim stage" which means without looking into the evidence to be collected in trial, natural equilibrium cannot be disturbed.
Therefore, nothing is really lost. However, Karnataka is examining this issue more seriously and will take a final view, whether to appeal to the Supreme Court or seek clarification from the Mahadayi Tribunal.
The bench said you failed to convince it by producing the techno-feasibility report. Why could Karnataka not furnish the details?
The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 has to be decided on the ‘touchstone of material injury’ or ‘prejudicial affectation’ at the border. Therefore, whether the project proposed by Karnataka for lifting of 7 tmc is fully feasible or not is not really germane to the dispute before the Tribunal.
Even then Karnataka had filed preliminary project report incorporating the hydrological study conducted by Prof. Ramaprasad (retd) of the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru. If the Tribunal had asked for detailed project report, certainly it could have been filed.
However, it is necessary to note that no such detailed project reports were filed for most of the projects by Maharashtra before the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal. But, it made no difference. The States were allocated en bloc water on the touchstone of injury at the border.
Karnataka has a Hobson’s choice. If it changes the legal team, no one knows the competence of the successor. If it continues with the present team, there is no guarantee of getting justice. Comment.
No comments. State is free to change its legal team.
People say, Karnataka paid Rs 11 crore to lawyers and got nothing.
(laughs) From Bengaluru standards, it may sound high but this is the standard fee in Delhi. There’s nothing I can say. The government should take a call on this. I appear for four states and what I charge for Karnataka is very less compared to my fee charged for other states.
You have been in the profession for 31 years. On water dispute issues, isn’t it better for states to go for mediation than fight a case in the court of law?
Resolution of water disputes by adjudication is certainly not a preferred method. The US Supreme Court had held long back that water disputes require expert administration than resolution by applying hard and fast rules. Section 4(1) of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act does not provide for compulsory adjudication of water disputes. The Central Government is empowered to constitute a Tribunal only after it reaches a conclusion that the water dispute cannot be settled by negotiations.
However, Parliament should amend the law and streamline the process of negotiation under the mediation of a former Supreme Court judge within a stipulated period of one year. This may make the negotiation meaningful.
The Central Government conducted negotiations on Cauvery Water Disputes between 1969 and 1990 for 21 years. In Krishna, the Central Government conducted negotiations from mid-1950s to 1969. In Mahadayi, the Central Government negotiated between mid-1985 and 2010 without any success.
