New Delhi: With Karnataka completing its reply in the on going Cauvery disputes arguments, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to bring their experts in support of their arguments.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justices Dipak Misra and Justices Amitav Roy and D.Y. Chandrachud are hearing appeals against the Cauvery Disputes Tribunal’s final award of February 2007 on allocation of water for Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala and Union Territory of Puducherry.
After the conclusion of arguments by senior counsel Jaideep Gupta for Kerala, the CJI asked senior counsel for Tamil Nadu Shekar Naphade to conclude his reply on September 19 and on September 20, experts will make their submissions.
Continuing his arguments Karnataka Counsel Mohan Katarki said the Tribunal had completely ignored the drinking water needs of Bengaluru on the ground that 2/3rd of the population of the city did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Cauvery basin. He pointed out that while the Tribunal had allowed cultivation of two crops Kuruvai and thaladi for Tamil Nadu, it had not permitted Karnataka to cultivate two crops.
He rejected the claim of TN for additional allocation of 72.08 tmcft for its double rice crops and said the court should not consider this demand. He argued that cultivation of double rice crops in TN, viz Kurivai-Thaladi was wholly inconsistent with climatic factors of the Cauvery basin in Tamil nadu.
He questioned as to why Karnataka should supply water to TN during summer months of June and July. Mr. Katarki said admittedly main rainfall for TN was from northeast monsoon. Therefore Kuruvai had to sustain itself entirely from irrigation supplies from Karnataka.
Senior counsel Shyam Divan, supported the arguments of Mr. Katarki and said ground water availability in the delta region of TN was not considered by the Tribunal while reckoning the liability of Karnataka at the inter-State border at Biligundlu. He said 20 tmcft of ground water available in TN was not taken into account while apportioning the share of water. He said since the findings of the Tribunal are perverse and unsupported by proper evidence, this court should set aside the final award in favour of Karnataka.
