Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • There Was No Examination of Needs of Riparian States, Fali Nariman Tells SC

    Uploaded by

    Vinoth Loganathan
    18 views1 page
    Fali Nariman argued before the Supreme Court that the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal did not properly consider equity or the needs of the riparian states when making its water sharing decision. Specifically, it did not examine the population in the river basin depending on the water or the cultivable land area of each state. It also did not properly consider climatic, hydrological, engineering, and geographical factors. Nariman argued the tribunal should have first determined the equitable shares of each state before considering how much water was being utilized by each state.

    Original Description:

    Hindu

    Original Title

    Hindu

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Fali Nariman argued before the Supreme Court that the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal did not properly consider equity or the needs of the riparian states when making its water sharing decision. Specifically, it did not examine the population in the river basin depending on the water or the cultivable land area of each state. It also did not properly consider climatic, hydrological, engineering, and geographical factors. Nariman argued the tribunal should have first determined the equitable shares of each state before considering how much water was being utilized by each state.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    18 views1 page

    There Was No Examination of Needs of Riparian States, Fali Nariman Tells SC

    Uploaded by

    Vinoth Loganathan
    Fali Nariman argued before the Supreme Court that the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal did not properly consider equity or the needs of the riparian states when making its water sharing decision. Specifically, it did not examine the population in the river basin depending on the water or the cultivable land area of each state. It also did not properly consider climatic, hydrological, engineering, and geographical factors. Nariman argued the tribunal should have first determined the equitable shares of each state before considering how much water was being utilized by each state.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Cauvery tribunal overlooked equity

    There was no examination of needs of riparian States, Fali Nariman tells SC


    Legal Correspondent water by each State to the
    NEW DELHI river valley, the population
    Karnataka on Wednesday ar- of each State in the basin de-
    gued that the Cauvery Water pending upon the waters
    Dispute Tribunal did not ap- and the culturable area of
    portion the waters of the each State in the basin. The
    inter-State river on the basis culturable area in the basin
    of settled principles of on Karnataka side is 5,522
    equity. th.ha. and that of Tamil
    Appearing before a Bench Nadu is 2,891 th.ha.
    led by Justice Dipak Misra on He argued that the
    the second day of the hear- tribunal should have given
    ing of separate appeals filed due weight to the climatic
    by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu factors, hydrological cycle,
    and Kerala against the Bone of contention: A file picture of Cauvery water flowing engineering factors and geo-
    tribunals final order on wa- from Karnataka into the Mettur dam. E. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
    *
    graphical positions in the
    ter sharing in 2007, Karnata- basin while assessing the
    kas counsel and senior ad- lakh acres for irrigation util- same agreement, the senior needs of each State.
    vocate Fali Nariman said the ising 566 tmc of Cauvery lawyer added. Mr. Nariman said the
    water-sharing arrangement water. When Tamil Nadu objec- tribunal should have first ad-
    decided by the tribunal did There was no examina- ted to Mr. Narimans line of judicated the shares of the
    not keep in view the equity tion, whatever, of the needs argument, Justice Misra ob- States by the principles of
    as also the farming families. of different riparian States served: suitable apportionment,
    Mr. Nariman argued that keeping in view the equity as Every State is part of our without reference to any di-
    at the time of the 1924 agree- also the farming families, nation. We do not want versions/utilisation made by
    ment for water-sharing, Mr. Nariman submitted. States to quarrel. party States.
    Tamil Nadu was entitled to Mr. Nariman continued It would then have be-
    develop only 21.38 lakh Dont quarrel that the real shares of come apparent as to
    acres for irrigation. After breaching the 1924 each riparian State should whether or not any party
    However, even as the 1924 agreement, that very State be determined on the basis State had appropriated in ex-
    agreement continued, the [Tamil Nadu] demanded of needs by taking into ac- cess of its equitable share in
    State had developed 28.2 more water using the very count the contribution of the waters, he contended.

    You might also like