The Hindu : National : Visit to basin by two members cleared

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Sep 11, 2004

National

National

Visit to basin by two members cleared

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI, SEPT. 10. The Supreme Court today reserved the verdict on a petition filed by Karnataka seeking reconstitution of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal on the ground that there was difference of opinion among the Members and the Chairman and that it would not get a fair deal from the Tribunal in this atmosphere.

A Bench comprising Justice Ruma Pal and Justice Arun Kumar, however, vacated the interim order restraining the two Members, N.S. Rao and Sudhir Narain, from undertaking a tour to the Cauvery basin to understand the ground realities.

On August 20, the Supreme Court, acting on a special leave petition (SLP) filed by Gandhi Sahitya Sangh Trust, restrained the two Members from undertaking the visit and issued notice to the Centre, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Pondicherry and the Tribunal.

Jethmalani's plea

When the matter was taken up today, Ram Jethmalani, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the two Members, without the Chairman, was no Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to carry out the inspection. In the present atmosphere, there was a possibility of the Members getting prejudiced and there was apprehension that Karnataka would not get a fair deal.

The Bench intervened and asked counsel what was wrong in inspection. Every Tribunal had been doing this. ``Why are you prejudging the issue that they will react in a particular manner? Why do you assume that their visit will be prejudicial to the interest of Karnataka? This is a wrong and extreme reaction," it said.

Bias alleged

Karnataka's senior counsel, G.L. Sanghi, argued that the visit by only two Members was contrary to the provisions of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, as they did not constitute the Tribunal; where was the need for inspection after closure of evidence and also the completion of arguments pertaining to availability of water, he asked.

Mr. Sanghi also accused Mr. Rao, a Member of the Tribunal, of bias since he ``secretly'' visited Tamil Nadu in 1997 and this came to light only during a cross-examination in 2002. Karnataka fully supported the petitioner's contention that "the Tribunal has almost broken down" which could only be remedied by reconstituting it.

Appearing for Tamil Nadu, senior counsel K.K. Venugopal and C.S. Vaidyanathan questioned the petitioner's locus standi to file the petition since the court in April 2003 had dismissed a similar petition filed by the same organisation.

`Proxy petition'

Mr. Venugopal said the ``proxy petition" at the behest of Karnataka was meant to somehow delay and thwart the proceedings of the Tribunal which was to complete its hearing shortly and give its final award. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Tribunal, both the Members had given their tour programme and the States were making all arrangements when the court asked the two Members to defer their visit by 10 days. The Tribunal was competent to undertake the inspection, he said and brought to the court's notice how various other Tribunals had carried out such inspections for a proper appreciation of facts.

He said Karnataka had been systematically making every attempt to delay the final award by the Tribunal. To accuse the Tribunal Members of bias after 11 years amounted not only to damaging the Members but also a travesty of justice. He sought dismissal of the petition and to vacate the interim order passed on August 20.

Appearing for Kerala, senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan agreed with Mr. Jethmalani that the two Members of the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to inspect the Cauvery basin.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National