New Delhi: The rift between the Chairman and two members of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal has resulted in a stalemate over the submission of its final award. This division has prompted the tribunal to seek a six-month extension as its tenure ends on August 6.

While the Chairman, Justice N.P. Singh says arguments have been concluded, N.S. Rao and Sudhir Narain say some more information is required on groundwater availability and requirements.

Sources say if extension is not granted the whole exercise of the tribunal for 16 years will become infructuous.

Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Pondichery are parties before the tribunal constituted on June 2, 1990 at the instance of Tamil Nadu, which made the representation to the Centre as early as July 1986. On June 25, 1991, the tribunal gave its interim award directing Karnataka to release 205 tmcft of water every year to Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery River Authority was constituted in 1998 to ensure proper implementation of the interim award.

The tribunal held hearings on over 500 days, and in April this year all the States completed their arguments and filed a joint memorandum to this effect.

States unanimous

However, the two members released the confidential reports of the assessors on water availability and requirment, and sought the response of the States. During the July 10 hearing all the States unanimously said they were not interested in any further argument and asked the tribunal to give its final award. However, the two members indicated that they would pass an order on the groundwater requirement and adjourned the proceedings.

Lawyers of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka say no useful purpose would be served by passing such an order. For, all the States have already submitted notes on water requirements and if their response is sought again, they will just reiterate their position. Raising the issue again will only delay the award.

As per the amendments introduced to the Inter-State Water Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2002, a tribunal is required to complete its task within three years. If a decision could not be given by then for unavoidable reasons, its term could be extended up to two years. A one-year extension was granted to the Cauvery tribunal in 2005. Now it has sought an extension in the light of the legal position, say lawyers.

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