காவிரி மேலாண்மை வாரியத்தை உடனே அமைக்க உத்தரவிட வேண்டும் மறறும் காவிரி நீர் ஒழுங்குமுறை குழு அமைக்க உத்தரவிடவேண்டும் என்பதை வலியுறுத்தி, பிரதமர் நரேந்திர மோதிக்கு தமிழக முதலமைச்சர் ஜெ.ஜெயலலிதா விரிவானக் கடிதம் எழுதியுள்ளார்.
பிரதமர் நரேந்திர மோதிக்கு, தமிழக முதலமைச்சர் ஜெ.ஜெயலலிதா இன்று (13.06.2014) எழுதியுள்ள கடிதத்தில் கூறியுள்ளதாவது;
காவிரி நடுவர்மன்ற தீர்ப்பை அமல்படுத்தினால் தான் தமிழக விவசாயிகளின் உரிமை பாதுகாக்கப்படும் என்றும், மேலாண்மை வாரியம் அமைக்கும் திட்டமில்லை என மத்திய அமைச்சர்கள் அனந்தகுமார், வெங்கையா நாயுடு ஆகியோர் பேசியதாக செய்தி வெளியாகியுள்ளது என்றும், தமிழக முதலமைச்சர் ஜெ.ஜெயலலிதா தனது கடித்தில் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார்.
மேலும், வாரியம் அமைக்க நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிடவில்லை என மத்திய நீர்வளத்துறை அமைச்சர் பேசியுள்ளதையும் தமிழக முதலமைச்சர் ஜெ.ஜெயலலிதா சுட்டிக்காட்டியுள்ளார். மத்திய நீர்வளத்துறை அமைச்சரின் பேச்சால் தமிழக மக்களிடையே குழப்பத்தையும், அச்சத்தையும் ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளது என தமிழக முதலமைச்சர் ஜெ.ஜெயலலிதா கடிதத்தில் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார்.
P.R. No. 292 Date:13.06.2014
Text of the D.O. letter dated 13.6.2014 along with its annexure addressed
by Selvi J Jayalalithaa, Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu to
Shri Narendra Modi, Hon’ble Prime Minister of India is reproduced
below:
“You may recall that when I met you on the 3rd of June, 2014, I had
presented a Memorandum detailing, among others, the importance of the
need for the constitution of the Cauvery Management Board and the
Cauvery Water Regulation Committee immediately. Even during our
conversation, I had stressed the absolute necessity and urgency for the
formation of the Cauvery Management Board and the Cauvery Water
Regulation Committee. I was given to understand that steps are being
taken by the Government of India and matters were proceeding
satisfactorily for the present.
In the meanwhile, Thiru Ananth Kumar, Union Minister for
Chemicals and Fertilizers, has been quoted in the Media, stating that
there was no proposal by the Government of India to form the Cauvery
Management Board. In view of our conversation, I had chosen to ignore
his statement and even defended you when there were protests from
various political parties in Tamil Nadu. I had stated that since your
Government has been formed recently, some time has to be given to the
Central Government to take action to form the Cauvery Management
Board. However, within two days, there was another statement by Thiru
Venkaiah Naidu, Union Minister for Urban Development Housing, Urban
Poverty Alleviation and Parliamentary Affairs, who reiterated to the media
that there is no proposal to form the Cauvery Management Board. I also
chose not to raise even this matter with you. In response to belligerent
protests by political parties in Tamil Nadu, once again I defended you by
saying that such a statement had not emanated from the Prime Minister
or from the Union Minister for Water Resources.
However, I am now compelled to write this letter, which has been
necessitated by the meeting you had with an all party delegation from
Karnataka led by the Chief Minister of Karnataka, who submitted
a Memorandum to you. This Memorandum which is replete with
prevarications and misleading statements is aimed at making the Final
Order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal itself nugatory. This is
something which I could not ignore and I am constrained to point out the
trials and tribulations faced by Tamil Nadu to get its legitimate and due
share of water from a recalcitrant, upper riparian State, which considers
itself as having a natural superior right over ALL the waters of the
inter-State river Cauvery.
A reference was made by Tamil Nadu in July, 1986, to the
Government of India to constitute a Tribunal for the adjudication of the
2
Cauvery Water Dispute. In May, 1990, only after the Supreme Court
had directed the Government of India to constitute a Tribunal, a Tribunal
was constituted to adjudicate the Cauvery Water Disputes in June, 1990,
as per the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.
The Government of Tamil Nadu, after a prolonged legal battle, got
an Interim Order from the Tribunal on 25.6.1991. The Tribunal mandated
a total annual quantity of 205 TMC.ft. to be ensured at the Mettur Dam,
stipulating weekly and monthly releases. The Government of Karnataka
did not honour the Interim Order of the Tribunal and promulgated an
Ordinance on 25.7.1991 nullifying the Interim Order and arrogating to
itself ALL the waters of the River Cauvery, in blatant violation of the
federal principles enshrined in the Constitution of India.
The President of India, through a Presidential Reference (Reference
No.1 of 1991), then sought the opinion of the Supreme Court of India
regarding the validity of the Ordinance (which later became an Act) and
the power of the Tribunal to grant an Interim Order etc., on 27.7.1991.
The Supreme Court, in its opinion rendered on 22.11.1991, had declared
that Karnataka’s Ordinance (then the Act) was ultra vires the Constitution
of India and struck it down and upheld the Interim Order of the Cauvery
Water Disputes Tribunal dated 25.6.1991 and opined that the Central
Government should publish the said Interim Order in the official Gazette
of the Government of India, as required under Section 6 of the Act. Only
thereafter, did the Government of India, notify the Interim Order of the
Tribunal by publishing it in the official Gazette of the Government of India
on 10.12.1991.
The Government of Karnataka did not at any time honour the
Interim Order of the Tribunal which is tantamount to an order of the
Supreme Court by law and did not even once release water to Tamil Nadu
as per the prescribed schedule in the Interim Order of the Tribunal. Only
the surplus flood waters, which its reservoirs could not hold flowed to
Tamil Nadu. The Government of Tamil Nadu repeatedly pressed for an
appropriate Authority to effectively implement the Interim Order of the
Tribunal and, on many occasions, was driven from pillar to post to get its
due share of Cauvery water. In 1992, my Government filed a Suit in the
Supreme Court of India to direct the Government of India to frame
a scheme for the implementation of the Interim Order of the Tribunal.
The Government of India framed a draft Scheme constituting an Authority
comprising Technical Officers to oversee and regulate the releases from
the Reservoirs to the respective States which provided for taking over the
control of the Reservoirs, if necessary. However, the then Prime Minister
Thiru.A.B.Vajpayee, constituted a simple scheme on 11.8.1998, viz., the
Cauvery River Authority with the Prime Minister as the Chairman and the
Chief Ministers of the four Basin States as Members. This Authority was
assisted by a Monitoring Committee. Even while the scheme was under
consideration, I protested against this simple scheme and insisted on
a more effective scheme so that the Interim Order could be implemented
properly. What Tamil Nadu was demanding is a legal and constitutional
3
right under Article 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India and all the
Authorities in the territory of India are bound to implement the Interim
Order. There were only 7 meetings of the Authority from the date of its
constitution on 11.8.1998 till February, 2013. As the functioning of the
Authority was not effective, the Government of Tamil Nadu had filed two
Suits in the Supreme Court in the years 2001 and 2002 for framing a new
Scheme in substitution / replacement of the 1998 scheme or an additional
scheme making adequate provisions for all matters necessary to give
effect to the Interim Order of the Tribunal. Purely for political
considerations, the Cauvery River Authority did not do justice to
Tamil Nadu in implementing the Interim Order of the Tribunal.
In the meantime, the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956,
was amended with effect from 6.8.2002 (Act No.14 of 2002), whereby
Section 6(2) was introduced. According to this Section, the decision of
the Tribunal, after its publication in the official Gazette by the Central
Government under Section 6(1), shall have the same force as an
order or Decree of the Supreme Court. Thus, the decision of the
Tribunal in law is an order / decree of the Supreme Court and is law
declared by the Supreme Court and is enforceable throughout the
territory of India.
The Tribunal, after 16 years of proceedings, pronounced its Final
Order on 5.2.2007 under Section 5(2) of the Inter State River Water
Disputes Act, 1956. The Tribunal had also forwarded the said decision to
the Central Government. The allocations made in the Final Order to the
party States are as follows:-
Karnataka 270 TMC ft.
Kerala 30 TMC ft.
Tamil Nadu 419 TMC ft.
Pondicherry 7 TMC ft.
Environmental protection 10 TMC ft.
Inevitable escapage to
the sea
4 TMC ft.
Total 740 TMC ft.
The Tribunal has also prescribed an annual quantity of 192 TMC ft.
of water to be ensured at the inter-State border, presently identified as
Billigundulu, as per the prescribed monthly pattern from June of every
year to May of next year. The flow of 192 TMC ft. to be ensured at
Billigundulu is far below the actual requirement of Tamil Nadu.
The Congress led UPA Central Government in office at that time,
which was supported by the then DMK Government in Tamil Nadu,
deliberately chose not to publish the Final Order of the Tribunal in the
official Gazette of the Government of India, as provided for under Section
6(1) of the Act, and intentionally delayed the notification of the Final
Order of the Tribunal. The previous DMK Government in Tamil Nadu also
4
did not press for the immediate Notification of the Final Order in the
official Gazette of the Government of India for reasons best known to
themselves.
As soon as I assumed office for the third time as Chief Minister in
May, 2011, I took vigorous efforts to get the Final Order of the Tribunal
notified and, after a protracted legal battle in the Supreme Court, the
Final Order of the Tribunal was notified on 19.2.2013 in the official
Gazette of the Government of India. However, the Central Government
cannot rest with the mere notification of the Final Order but has the
constitutional duty and responsibility to constitute a scheme under
Section 6A of the Act, viz., the Cauvery Management Board and the
Cauvery Water Regulation Committee, immediately following the
publication of the Final Order as mandated therein, so that the said Final
Order is implemented in all respects.
I would also like to bring to your kind notice that the Constitution of
the Cauvery Management Board is not optional but an integral part of
the Final Order itself, which has been notified. Therefore, as a natural
corollary and as an extension of the Notification, the Cauvery
Management Board should have been formed by the erstwhile Congress
led UPA Central Government. However, the erstwhile Congress led
Central Government dragged its feet for political considerations and did
not form the Cauvery Management Board until it demitted office.
In this context, I would like to bring to your notice that the Cauvery
Water Disputes Tribunal, in Chapters 7 and 8 of the Final Order, has
mandated the formation of the Cauvery Management Board and the
Cauvery Water Regulation Committee, with its composition and functions,
particularly in Chapter 8 at pages 216 to 236.
Therefore, the formation of the CMB and CWRC is an integral part of
the Final Order of the Tribunal. For your immediate reference, the
relevant portions of the Order are reproduced as under:
Chapter 7:
“Para.18 – It may be mentioned that at Inter-State contact point,
192 TMC is to be maintained in a normal year and if there is any
deficiency in the quantum of inflows mentioned above, it will be
open to the Cauvery Management Board / Regulatory Authority to
suitably adjust the flows.”
Para.19 – Note (ii) – The monthly releases shall be broken in
10 daily intervals by the suggested Regulatory Authority while
implementing the schedule.”-
Para.22 xx xxx “The Cauvery Management Board / Regulatory
Authority shall also set up its machinery and devise method to
determine quantum of unutilised water to be received from Kerala
5
by Tamil Nadu through Kabini and its tributaries, and ensure
delivery thereof in Tamil Nadu at common border.”
Chapter 8:
“xxx. In our opinion, the necessity of setting up a suitable
mechanism is of utmost importance; besides whatever
machinery is set up should be adequately empowered to
implement the Tribunal’s decision, as otherwise, we are
afraid our decision would only be on a piece of paper.”
I would like to point out here that unless the Cauvery Management
Board is formed, the notification will be only “on a piece of paper” as
stated by the Tribunal.
During the last 2 years, we were not able to open the Mettur Dam
for irrigation on the scheduled date of June 12 because of poor releases
from the upper riparian State of Karnataka. This year too, we have not
been able to open the Mettur Dam for irrigation on the scheduled date for
want of adequate storage and inflows. This would result in a substantial
loss of the Kuruvai paddy crop cultivation in the Cauvery Delta Districts,
which in turn, would not only affect the livelihood of lakhs of farmers and
the economy of the State, but would also be a National loss.
The Memorandum submitted to you by the Chief Minister of
Karnataka, I reiterate, is full of misleading statements and distorted facts.
I would like to place on record the factual position in the annexed
statement.
I would like to point out that the final decision of the Cauvery Water
Disputes Tribunal which has been published in the Central Gazette on
19.2.2013 is a decision of the Supreme Court by virtue of sub-Section (2)
of Section 6 of the Inter State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, and all the
authorities in the territory of India, including the Government of
Karnataka, have to act in aid of the implementation of the same in terms
of the Constitutional mandate. Any objection raised by the Government of
Karnataka to the implementation of the decision would be an
unconstitutional step and should not be encouraged. It is not open to the
Government of Karnataka to raise any objection to the implementation of
the decision. The decision of the Tribunal is sacrosanct and is on par with
a decision of the Supreme Court. If the Government of Karnataka cannot
raise an objection to the decision of the Supreme Court, equally it cannot
raise any objection to the decision of the Tribunal. Hence, I request you
to over-rule the objections raised by the Government of Karnataka and
constitute the Cauvery Management Board and the Cauvery Water
Regulation Committee.
I once again wish to reiterate that the Final Order of the Cauvery
Water Disputes Tribunal had been notified on February 19, 2013, which
clearly envisaged the formation of the Cauvery Management Board and
the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee. I would also like to state that
immediately after notification in the Gazette, Tamil Nadu has been
6
pressing for the expeditious formation of the Cauvery
Management Board. The State of Tamil Nadu had also filed an I.A.
(I.A.No.5/2013) before the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the
Central Government to constitute the Cauvery Management Board,
whereupon the then Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the
Government of India, had stated before the Court that “the
following up action pursuant to the Notification dated February
19, 2013, is under active consideration of the Central
Government.”
When this is so, the statement made by the Union Minister for
Water Resources in a Press meet yesterday (12.6.2014) to the effect
that – “xxx The proposal was never here. Everything is under
consideration and there was no direction from the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. We will do everything according to the direction of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and we have decided that no injustice will be done to both
the States. That’s it.” has created confusion in the minds of the people of
Tamil Nadu.
As the proposal is very much under the active consideration of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Water Resources and the previous
UPA Government had deliberately dragged its feet for political
considerations, I once again exhort you to order the formation of the
Cauvery Management Board and the Cauvery Water Regulation
Committee immediately so that the Final Order of the Tribunal is
implemented in full and the legitimate rights of Tamil Nadu farmers are
protected.”
******
7
PARAWISE REMARKS OF TAMIL NADU
TO KARNATAKA’S MEMORANDUM
Para
Nos.
Content of
Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
1 The inter-State river
Cauvery is the
lifeline of the State
of Karnataka for
meeting the
irrigation and
domestic water
needs in the
drought stricken
areas in the
Cauvery Basin and
Bangalore.
The river Cauvery is the lifeline
of Tamil Nadu and has age old
irrigation and ayacut for
centuries in the delta area of
Tamil Nadu. Karnataka has
been denying the due share of
water year after year to Tamil
Nadu and Tamil Nadu has been
forced to approach the Supreme
Court time and again to get its
due and legitimate share of
water.
8
Para
Nos.
Content of
Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
2
The genesis of the water
disputes between the
riparian States lies in the
unjust and unreasonable
agreement imposed by
the imperial British
power on the Maharaja
of Mysore in 1892 and
1924 depriving the
people of Mysore (now
Karnataka) their
equitable share in the
waters of Cauvery. In
1990, the water disputes
between the riparian
States of Karnataka,
Tamil Nadu, Kerala and
Union Territory of
Pondicherry were
referred to the Cauvery
Water Disputes Tribunal.
However, the said
Tribunal by its purported
Decision passed in
February 2007 enforced
the pre-constitutional
agreements imposed on
Mysore (now Karnataka)
and distributed 740 tmc
between the riparian
States of Karnataka (270
tmc), Kerala (30 tmc),
Tamil Nadu (433 tmc)
and Union territory of
Pondicherry (7 tmc) and
directed the State of
Karnataka to ensure 192
(a) The Agreements of
1892 and 1924 were
not imposed on the
Maharaja of Mysore by
the then British
Government. These
two Agreements are
validating and were
discussed at various
levels and were
executed by the
competent authorities.
To quote “Para 63 –
Competent Authorities
on behalf of both the
States after proper
application of mind and
discussion and
consultation entered
into those
Agreements.” (Volume
II page 43 of Final
Order)
(b) The actual allocation
by the Cauvery Water
Disputes Tribunal to
Tamil Nadu is 419 TMC
ft. out of 740 TMC ft.
Karnataka has included
the quantity provided
for the inevitable
escapages to the sea
(4 TMC ft.) and
environmental
protection
(10 TMC ft.) in the
Tamil Nadu allocation
9
tmc at the inter-State
border Biligundlu in a
normal water year.
which is mischievous
and typical of
Karnataka’s attitude.
(c) In fact it is the case of
Tamil Nadu that the
Tribunal has allocated
more water to
Karnataka than what is
required and due to
Tamil Nadu. The
Tribunal has not taken
Tamil Nadu’s
Sethiathope Anicut
etc., into consideration
and Tamil Nadu has
appealed against the
Order of the Tribunal.
10
Para
Nos.
Content of
Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
3 Being aggrieved against
the lesser allocation of
270 tmc though
Karnataka contributes
about 400 tmc of water
to the Basin yield of 740
tmc, Karnataka
preferred an SLP in the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
After admission, the SLP
is numbered as Civil
Appeal No.2453/2007,
which is pending for
hearing before the
Division Bench of three
Hon’ble Judges.
The pendency of the Civil
Appeals was not a bar for
the notification of the Final
Order of Cauvery Water
Disputes Tribunal. The
formation of the Cauvery
Management Board /
Cauvery Water Regulation
Committee is an integral
part of the notified Final
Order. Therefore, pendency
of the Civil Appeals is not a
bar on the formation of the
Board. The Final Order of
the Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal is in law an order
of the Supreme Court by
virtue of Sub-Section 2 of
Section 6 of Inter State
River Water Disputes Act,
1956
11
Para
Nos.
Content of Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
4 Despite the lesser
allocation of 270 tmc to
Karnataka and placing a
heavy burden of release
of 192 tmc in normal year
to Tamil Nadu at the inter
State border Biligundlu,
the State of Karnataka
agreed to the publication
of the Final Order and
Decision of 2007
superseding the interim
Order dated 25.06.1991
whereby the State of
Karnataka was directed to
ensure 205 tmc at Mettur
in Tamil Nadu.
Accordingly, the said Final
Order and Decision was
published by the Central
Government under
Sec.6(1) of the Inter-
State River Water
Disputes Act, 1956, vide
notification dated
19.02.2013. However, it
is expressly clarified that
the said publication is
without prejudice to the
contentions of the States
in the pending Civil
Appeals challenging the
final order and decision of
the Tribunal.
Karnataka had agreed to
the publication of the
Final Order of the
Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal before the
Supreme Court.
It is the case of Tamil
Nadu that the pendency
of Civil Appeals is not a
prohibition for the
formation of the Board,
as the Cauvery
Management Board and
Cauvery Water
Regulation Committee is
a natural corollary to
the notification of the
Final Award of the
Tribunal. The Cauvery
Water Disputes Tribunal
in its report Volume V,
Chapter 8, Page 223 has
recommended the
formation of the
Cauvery Management
Board and Cauvery
Water Regulation
Committee and has
defined its composition,
powers and functions.
12
Para
Nos.
Content of
Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
5 Subsequently and
contrary to the
understanding, the State
of Tamil Nadu raised the
issue of constitution of
Cauvery Management
Board for
implementation of the
said published final order
and decision. The State
of Karnataka opposed
the said demand of
Tamil Nadu by
specifically pointing out
that the Cauvery
Management Board is
not a part of any of the
provisions of the said
published final order and
decision of the Tribunal.
It has been also pointed
out that the Tribunal has
not directed for the
constitution of the
Cauvery Management
Board, but has only
made recommendation
as clarified in the Report
(page 223, Vol.V of the
Report) which is not a
part of the published
final order and decision
of the Tribunal. The
relevant part of the
Report is as follows:
“For this purpose, we
recommend that
It is a misleading statement
by Karnataka that Tamil
Nadu raised the issue of
Cauvery Management Board
and Cauvery Water
Regulation Committee
contrary to the
“understanding”. There
was no such
“understanding” by any
State, let alone Tamil Nadu,
that Cauvery Management
Board and Cauvery Water
Regulation Committee can
await the final disposal of
SLPs. In fact, the
notification of the Cauvery
Water Disputes Tribunal
will become a meaningless
and futile exercise if the
Cauvery Management Board
and Cauvery Water
Regulation Committee are
not formed.
Following the notification of
the Final Order on
19.2.2013, the said order is
a Decree of the Supreme
Court. The Interim Order
which was in existence
ceased to exist and there is
no permanent machinery to
properly implement the
Final Order. Hence, Tamil
Nadu has been urging the
Government of India for the
13
Cauvery Management
Board on the lines of
Bhakra Beas
Management Board may
be constituted by the
Central Government.”
constitution of the Cauvery
Management Board (CMB)
and the Cauvery Water
Regulation Committee
(CWRC). The formation of
the CMB is an integral part
of the Final Order. It is,
therefore, a mandatory
provision contained in the
Final Order. The relevant
portions of the Final Order
extracted below will amply
demonstrate the mandatory
nature of the Final Order to
constitute the CMB.
“Para.18 Chapter 7 page
208 – It may be mentioned
that at Inter-State contact
point, 192 TMC is to be
maintained in a normal year
and if there is any
deficiency in the quantum
of inflows mentioned above,
it will be open to the
Cauvery Management Board
/ Regulatory Authority to
suitably adjust the flows.”
Para.19 – Note (ii) – The
monthly releases shall be
broken in 10 daily intervals
by the suggested
Regulatory Authority while
implementing the
schedule.”-
Para.22 xx xxx “The
Cauvery Management Board
/ Regulatory Authority shall
also set up its machinery
and devise method to
determine quantum of
14
unutilised water to be
received from Kerala by
Tamil Nadu through Kabini
and its tributaries, and
ensure delivery thereof in
Tamil Nadu at common
border.”
It is also mischievious on
the part of Karnataka to
state that the
recommendation to form
the Board is not a part of
the published Final Order.
In fact, all
recommendations notes
etc., have been notified by
the Final Notification on
19.02.2013 as contained in
Clause XVII of the
notification which is
extracted below:-
“Class XVII – In addition,
note shall be taken of all
such orders, directions,
recommendations,
suggestions etc., which
have been detailed earlier
in different
chapters/volumes of the
report with decision for
appropriate action.”
Therefore, this plea of
Karnataka is legally
untenable.
Para
Nos.
Content of
Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
6 While recommending
the powers and
functions of the
Cauvery Management
Board and Regulation
Committee thereunder,
Tribunal has gone
beyond the powers
required for the
implementation of the
Final Order and
Decision of the
Tribunal. For instance,
it is suggested that the
State will have to
indent for the release
of water, which will be
approved by the
Cauvery Management
Board keeping in view
the reasonableness of
the indents. Thus, the
Cauvery Management
Board unduly infringes
upon the authority of
the State of Karnataka
to use even its
allocated share of
water. How and in what
manner the State of
Karnataka utilises its
share of water is none
of the concern of Tamil
Nadu, as long as,
Karnataka ensures 192
tmc at the inter State
border at Biligundlu in
The Tribunal has gone into the
aspects of Krishna Water
Disputes Tribunal Award
(1976) and Narmada Water
Disputes Tribunal Award
(1979) and also the
amendment of Section 6A of
the Act and recommended the
constitution of the CMB. The
Tribunal has clearly stated its
position about the necessity
for setting up a suitable
mechanism, besides stating
that whatever machinery is
set up should be adequately
empowered to implement the
Tribunal’s decision, as
otherwise, the decision would
only be on a piece of paper.
Para 14 in Chapter 8 page 223
of the Final Order of the
Tribunal states as follows:-
“For this purpose, we
recommend that Cauvery
Management Board on the
lines of Bhakra Beas
Management Board may be
constituted by the Central
Government. In our opinion,
the necessity of setting up a
suitable mechanism is of
utmost importance; besides
whatever machinery is set up
should be adequately
empowered to implement the
16
a normal water year. Tribunal’s decision, as
otherwise, we are afraid our
decision would only be on a
piece of paper.”
It may be incidentally stated
that the Govt. of Karnataka
before the Krishna Water
Disputes Tribunal had urged
the constitution of an
appropriate mechanism for
the implementation of the
decision of the Krishna Water
Disputes Tribunal. The KWDT
–II in its decision dated
29.11.2013 at page 356 has
stated as follows:
“The Tribunal, therefore, in its
opinion, had jurisdiction to
give necessary direction for
setting up a machinery with
provision for review to ensure
that the decision of the
Tribunal is faithfully
implemented by the parties
concerned.”
The Tribunal has further said
“whereas the Tribunal’s
jurisdiction under Section
5(ii) and 5(iii) have not been
limited or circumscribed, it is
to frame a scheme in the
decision itself for facilitating
the parties to discharge the
legal obligation to give effect
to the decision.” (vide page
359 of KWDT Award). The
Tribunal has also held as
17
follows: (a) The power to
frame a scheme under Section
6A is not thus mutually
exclusive. On the contrary,
the provisions contained in
Section 6 and 6A are mutually
inclusive. (vide page 360). (b)
Section 6A by no means of
imagination take away the
jurisdiction inherent or
implicit in the Tribunal to
make provisions for the
parties to comply with the
implementation of the
decision. (page 361)”. (c) “If
the order by the Tribunal
itself contains provisions for
implementation, the Central
Government may, if
necessary, supplement the
same. The legislature could
never intend nor had ever
intended to exclude the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Such interpretation cannot be
conceived in view of the
legislative intent implicit in
the enactment in the context
of Section 11 of the Act.”
(page 361)
Thus Karnataka has been
arguing differently in Krishna
and Cauvery cases. Thus, it is
clear that the sole purpose of
the Memorandum submitted
by Karnataka is to deny Tamil
Nadu its rightful share of
Cauvery waters as allocated
by the Cauvery Water
Disputes Tribunal.
18
Para
Nos.
Content of Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
7 The State of Tamil Nadu
filed I.A.No.5 before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal
No.2456/2007 seeking
direction against the
Central Government to
constitute Cauvery
Management Board.
However, as a pro tem
measure pending the Civil
Appeals, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed
the order on 10.05.2013
directing the constitution
of the Supervisory
Committee headed by the
Secretary in the Union
Ministry of Water
Resources and consisting
of Chief Secretaries of the
party States of Karnataka,
Tamil Nadu, Kerala and
Union Territory of
Pondicherry for the
implementation of the
Final Order and Decision
of the Tribunal published
on 19.02.2013.
The constitution of the Pro tem
Supervisory Committee is only
a temporary arrangement
without prejudice to the
pending Civil Appeals in the
Supreme Court. The then
Additional Solicitor General
Mr. Sidharth Luthra stated
before the Court that follow up
action pursuant to the
Notification dated February
19, 2013 is under active
consideration of the Central
Government. Thereupon, the
Court had ordered that “until
that is done, some
arrangement shall have to be
made. The arrangement made
hereunder is purely pro-tem
measure for the purpose of
ensuring the final order of the
Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal dated February
5,2007, now notified vide
Notification dated February
19, 2013.” It is the case of
Tamil Nadu that the pro tem
Supervisory Committee has
not been effective in
implementing the Final Order
of the Tribunal as ordered by
the Supreme Court. It is,
therefore, necessary to
constitute the Cauvery
Management Board as a
permanent measure to
effectively implement the Final
order of the Tribunal.
Para
Nos.
Content of
Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
8. Despite the above
order dated
10.05.2013, the State
of Tamil Nadu m oved
another application
being I.A.No.6 of 2013
seeking constitution of
the Cauvery
Management Board.
However, the
application was
permitted to be
withdrawn after
recording the
statement from its
counsel. The relevant
part of the order dated
05.08.2013 is
extracted below:
O R D E R
“Having regard to good
rains presently,
learned Senior Counsel
for the Applicant State
of Tamil Nadu is not
desirous of pressing
I.A No. 6 of 2013. It is
disposed of as
withdrawn. Liberty to
make fresh application
at appropriate stage.
………….”
The Supreme Court has
recorded about the good
rains at that point of time
and accordingly disposed of
the I.A. of Tamil Nadu as
withdrawn with liberty to
make fresh petition when
any contingency arises. As
liberty to make further
application had been given,
the State of Tamil Nadu had
moved another I.A. (I.A.No.7
of 2013) on 11.11.2013.
20
Para
Nos.
Content of
Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
9 and
10
Surprisingly, Tamil
Nadu filed another
application being
I.A.No.7 of 2013 again
asking for the
constitution of the
Cauvery Management
Board. The I.A. was
listed for hearing
before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court (Bench
consisting of Justice
Mr.R.M.Lodha, Justice
Mr.Madan Lokur and
Justice Mr.Kurian
Joseph) which, inter
alia, passed the
following order on
03.12.2013:
O R D E R
“We do not think that
there is any urgency
for consideration of the
prayers made by the
Applicant / Appellant –
State of Tamil Nadu by
means of this
Application.
In our view, the
Application can wait
and may be heard
along with the Civil
Appeal. List
Interlocutory
Application No. 7 of
2013 along with Civil
The inaction of the previous
Government for extraneous
reasons i.e. political
considerations, was the main
reason for not forming the
Cauvery Management Board
and Cauvery Water
Regulation Committee.
When an undertaking is
given by the counsel of
Government of India in the
Supreme Court that the
formation of the Board, “is
under active consideration of
the Government of India”
and no concerete action is
taken by the Government of
India for months thereafter,
the only recourse left was to
approach the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, since,
season after season, acute
agrarian distress is being
forced upon the farmers of
Tamil Nadu. The pro tem
Supervisory Committee has
also not fulfilled its
obligations in implementing
the Final Order of the
Tribunal in letter and spirit.
Therefore, Tamil Nadu had to
file an I.A. once again for the
constitution of the CMB.
Karnataka is seeking to
obfuscate the basic fact that
there is no legal bar on the
formation of the Cauvery
21
Appeal.
The Respondents,
State of Karnataka as
well as Union of India,
may file their response
to Interlocutory
Application No. 7 of
2013 within four
weeks”.
(emphasis supplied)
Hence, the matter is
directly covered, one
way or the other by
the orders of the
Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The insistence
of Tamil Nadu to set
up Cauvery
Management Board is
unjustified.
Management Board and
Cauvery Water Regulation
Committee after the
notification of the Final
Order is sought to be
obfuscated. Tamil Nadu
appeals to the Hon’ble Prime
Minister, that, as the
Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal Order once notified
is equivalent to a decree of
the Supreme Court and since
the formation of the Cauvery
Management Board and
Cauvery Water Regulation
Committee are an integral
part of the notified Final
Order, it is only but natural
that Government of India
should form the Cauvery
Management Board and
Cauvery Water Regulation
Committee. Tamil Nadu is
fully justified in seeking the
formation of the Cauvery
Management Board and
Cauvery Water Regulation
Committee.
22
Para
Nos.
Content of
Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
11. In the counter affidavit
filed by the State of
Karnataka against IA
7, it has been inter alia
averred that:
The Notification dated:
22.05.2013
constituting the
Supervisory
Committee under
Section 6A of the Act
of 1956 has not been
challenged.
The Civil Appeal 2453
of 2007 of Karnataka
challenging the Final
Order and Decision
dated: 05.02.2007
which was published
on 19.02.2013 is
pending consideration
before this Hon’ble
Court and it is fixed for
hearing on 15.01.2014
vide order dated:
05.08.2013. If the
prayer of Tamil Nadu
in instant I.A. is
granted constituting
the Cauvery
Management Board,
the plea of the State of
Karnataka may
become infructuous.
Section 6A of the Inter-State
River Water Disputes Act
1956, enables the Central
Government to frame a
scheme or schemes whereby
provision may be made for
all matters necessary to give
effect to the decision of the
Tribunal. The power under
Section 6A of the Act is
without prejudice to Section
6 of the Act meaning thereby
that the Scheme framed
under Section 6A of the Act
shall not affect the
mandatory provision that the
party States are bound to
give effect to the binding
decision published in the
official Gazette. There is no
bar to constituting the
machinery provided for in
the Final Order when the
Civil Appeals are pending
before the Supreme Court.
As stated earlier, Clause
XVII of the Final Order
(page 243 Volume V) clearly
says “recommendations etc,”
detailed earlier in different
Chapters /Volumes of the
Report with decision are for
appropriate action. Hence it
cannot be said that all the
orders of the Tribunal
contained in 5 Volumes
should be published in the
23
The Cauvery
Management Board
and the Regulatory
Committee there under
are not part of the
Final Order and
Decision published on
19.02.2013. There
was no mandatory
direction issued by the
Tribunal as alleged.
The Tribunal in its
Report (para 14, page
223 : page 874 of the
SLP Paper Book) has
specifically stated that:
“14. For this purpose
we recommend that
Cauvery Management
Board on the lines of
Bhakra Beas
Management Board
may be constituted by
the Central
Government. In our
opinion, the necessity
of setting up a suitable
mechanism is of at
most importance;
besides what ever
machinery is set up
should be adequately
empowered to
implement the
Tribunal’s decision, as
otherwise, we are
afraid our decision
would only be on a
piece of paper”.
Gazette of India so as to give
effect to the award of the
Tribunal rendered under
Section 5(2) of the Act.
As per the Inter State River
Water Disputes Act, 1956,
there is no need or necessity
for the Central Government
to implead itself as a party to
a Water Dispute before the
Tribunal, since the water
disputes would be between
the States. Karnataka’s
contention that the direction
to form a Board cannot be
given to the Central
Government as it is not a
party to the proceedings is
wrong and legally untenable.
The Final Order of the
Krishna Water Disputes
Tribunal II at page 361 has
stated as follows:- “If the
Orders by the Tribunal itself
contains provision for
implemention, the Central
Government may, if
necessary, supplement the
same. The legislature could
never intend nor had ever
intended to exclude the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Such interpretation cannot
be conceived in view of the
Legislative intent implicit in
the enactment in the context
of Section 11 of the Act.”
The Tribunal has been
formed under an Act of the
24
(emphasis applied)
Tamil Nadu’s reliance
on Clause – XVII of the
Final Order and
Decision is again
misleading. No
mandate can be
deduced from Clause –
XVII. Even here, what
is required to be taken
note of is the
“decision” and not the
recommendation. The
recommendation
remains
recommendation and
all that is required in
Clause – XVII is that
“note shall be taken”.
The said Clause is
extracted below for
immediate reference :
“In addition, note shall
be taken of all such
orders, directions,
recommendations,
suggestions etc., which
have been detailed
earlier in different
chapters / volumes of
the Report with
decision for
appropriate action”.
(Emphasis supplied)
The constitution of an
authority under
Section 6A of the Act
of 1956, is delegated
Parliament. This ridiculous
and frivolous contention of
Karnataka, if accepted,
would mean that no Board or
implementation authority
can be formed by the Central
Government in any Inter-
State Water Dispute.
25
legislation as held by
Justice U.C.Banerjee in
his concurring opinion
in the case of State of
Karnataka Vs State of
Andhra Pradesh and
Others in [(2000) 9
SCC 572 at 701-702].
No mandamus can be
issued. Relevant
portion of the
concurring judgement
is quoted below:
“The Law as regards
the issuance of a
mandatory order or
writ depends upon the
authority exercising
the power as well as
the nature of the
function and
obligations arising
there from. It is
settled law that such a
direction cannot
possibly be granted so
as to compel an
authority to exercise a
power which has a
substantial element of
discretion. In an event
the mandamus to
exercise a power which
is legislative in
character cannot be
issued and I am in full
agreement with the
submission of Mr.
26
Solicitor General on
this score as well. At
best it would only be
an issue of good
governance but that
by itself would not
mean and imply that
the Union Government
has executive power
even to force a
settlement upon the
State.
161. In that view of
the matter the suit
being OS No.1 of 1997
though otherwise
maintainable but it
devoid of any merit
and the reliefs prayed
for are wholly
unwarranted in the
contextual facts as
such dismissed without
however any order as
to costs”. [(2000) 9
SCC 572 at 701-702]
v). In any case, no
mandate to constitute
the Cauvery
Management Board
could have been issued
to the Central
Government by the
Tribunal, since the
Central Government
was not a party to the
Water Dispute before
the Tribunal.
27
Para
Nos.
Content of
Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
12. The Supervisory
Committee has been
duly functioning having
held 4 meetings in the
year 2013 on
01.06.2013,
12.06.2013,
15.07.2013 and
08.11.2013 and the
minutes have been
duly drawn and
submitted and its
observations have
been duly complied
with.
The pro-tem Supervisory
Committee has not been able
to function effectively to
implement the order fully.
Therefore, the permanent
machinery of CMB and CWRC
is absolutely essential.
28
Para
Nos.
Content of
Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
13. The Supervisory
Committee appointed
by the order of the
Supreme Court is
having considerable
authority than those
which was envisaged
by the Tribunal in its
recommendation of a
Cauvery Management
Board – clauses of
which have been
expressly challenged in
the pending Civil
Appeal No.2453/2007.
It is the grievance of Tamil
Nadu that the pro-tem
Supervisory Committee is
not implementing the Final
Order of the Tribunal dated
5.2.2007 in letter and spirit.
By its definition the
Supervisory Committee is a
“pro tem committee.” It
cannot and would not be a
substitute for the Cauvery
Management Board and
Cauvery Water Regulation
Committee as envisaged by
the Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal.
29
Para
Nos.
Content of
Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
14. Karnataka has
scrupulously followed
the direction of the
Supervisory
Committee till date –
thus for instance in the
year 2013 it has
delivered 260 tmc of
water to Tamil Nadu at
Biligundlu – more than
the stipulated quantity
of 192 tmc as
prescribed by the
Tribunal.
During the year 2013-2014,
the State of Karnataka did not
ensure the proportionate
quantity of water due at
Billigundulu in the first two 10
day periods from June 1 to 20,
even though it had sufficient
storage and received inflows.
Only after 25th June, 2013,
flood waters from Kabini
started flowing into Tamil
Nadu after Karnataka had
reached its FRL. Further, the
monthly releases and weekly
releases as stipulated by the
Final Order of the Cauvery
Water Disputes Tribunal were
not adhered to by Karnataka.
In fact, in the previous year
2012-2013 there was a
shortfall of over 58 TMC.ft.of
water even by the distress
sharing method as Karnataka
refused to release any water
and impounded all the waters
in its reservoirs. In fact, it is
this very uncertainty and
arbitrariness in release of
water to Tamil Nadu by
Karnataka that should be put
an end to and this can happen
only by the formation of the
Cauvery Management Board
and Cauvery Water Regulation
Committee.
30
Para
Nos.
Content of
Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
15. It is respectfully
submitted that in the
light of the foregoing,
what is imperative is
an immediate meeting
of the Supervisory
Committee headed by
the Secretary, Ministry
of Water Resources
and including Members
as Chief Secretaries of
the respective States
can take stock of the
situation and issue
appropriate directions.
As per the Final Order of the
Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal, in the month of
June, 10 TMC.ft. of water
should be given to Tamil
Nadu by Karnataka. The
Tribunal in its order has
allocated 134 TMC.ft. of
water to Tamil Nadu
between June to September.
Karnataka has contended in
its comments to the Agenda
items of the 1st meeting of
the Supervisory Committee
that it will not be able to
release the prescribed
amount of water to Tamil
Nadu as mandated by the
Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal.
Therefore, it is strange that
Karnataka is asking for a
meeting of the Supervisory
Committee. The need of the
hour for Tamil Nadu is the
formation of the Cauvery
Management Board and the
Cauvery Water Regulation
Committee to alleviate
agrarian distress in the delta
districts of Tamil Nadu and
therefore we request the
immediate formation of the
Cauvery Management Board
and Cauvery Water
Regulation Committee.
31
*****
Issued by: Director, Information and Public Relations, Chennai-9.
Date: 13.6.2014
Para
Nos.
Content of
Karnataka’s
Memorandum
Remarks by Tamil Nadu
16. We request you to
await the final decision
of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the
above Civil Appeals
before any
consideration with
regard to the
constitution of Cauvery
Management Board is
taken by the Central
Government.
The Hon’ble Chief Minister in
her Memorandum presented
to the Hon’ble Prime Minister
on 3.6.2014, had pointed out
that the functioning of the
pro-tem Supervisory
Committee is not effective.
The pro-tem Supervisory
Committee, being a
temporary arrangement as
observed by the Supreme
Court, cannot be continued
for a longer period since it
would delay the
implementation of the Final
Order of the Tribunal.
Therefore, the formation of
the CMB and CWRC is
absolutely essential to meet
the ends of justice, failing
which the Final Order of the
Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal though notified by
the Government of India in
the Government Gazette will
remain an unfulfilled dream.