New Delhi: The Supreme Court yesterday began its final hearing on the appeals filed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala against the 2007 award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT) on sharing of water. The Tribunal was set up in 1991. In 2007, it ordered the allocation of 419 tmcft of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu, 270 tmcft to Karnataka, 30 tmcft to Kerala and 7 tmcft to Puducherry.

During the day-long arguments before, a three-judge Bench of Justices Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy and A.M. Khanwilkar, Karnataka Counsel Fali S. Nariman told the Court about the agreements drawn between 1852, 1924 and 1974 and said during those years, no dispute arose between the States. Citing various judgments on water sharing, Nariman informed the Bench that the dispute between the States increased only after the expiry of those agreements. Nariman submitted that the 1892 agreement, the “parent” of the 1924 pact, dictated that Mysore (Karnataka) could not develop any irrigational infrastructure on the river without the consent of the Madras (Tamil Nadu) Government. Tamil Nadu had earlier countered before the Tribunal that the 1892 agreement was preceded by a good deal of mutual consideration of the interests of both the Madras Presidency and the Mysore State.

“For 50 years there was no dispute,” Nariman told the Court. “We are entitled to the natural flow of water and there must not be any interference in the same. People of Bangalore have the first right to have supply of drinking water to them from Cauvery,” Nariman added. The arguments remained inconclusive and were set to continue on July 12 (today). The marathon hearings were fixed after the SC had earlier refused the Centre’s stand that the apex Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the Cauvery river dispute. It had upheld the Constitutional power of the Court to hear the appeals filed by the three States against the Tribunal award. The Centre had argued that the Parliamentary law of Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956, coupled with Article 262(2) of the Constitution, excluded the Supreme Court from hearing or deciding any appeals against the Cauvery Tribunal’s decision. The Bench, however, had held that the remedy under Article 136 was a Constitutional right.