Real fight starts when Cauvery petition comes up on October 18: MB Patil
From September 5 to October 4, 2016, the state government faced a tough time and even annoyed the Supreme Court for defying its order to release water to Tamil Nadu. Water Resources Minister M.B. Patil was one of the key leaders who dedicated himself to resolving the crisis and was in constant touch with the state’s legal team. He personally attended the hearing in Supreme Court and his commitment was widely appreciated across social media. Mr Patil is a much happier man after the Supreme Court reduced the quantum of water to be released to Tamil Nadu from 6,000 cusecs to 2000 cusecs and deferred constitution of Cauvery River Management Board (CRMB). In an interview with Deccan Chronicle, he shared his thoughts. Here are excerpts of the interview.
Did the state government commit a mistake by agreeing to release 10,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu on the first day the case came up in the Supreme Court?
Before our Counsel Fali S. Nariman agreed to release the water, the court indicated that it would order release of water to Tamil Nadu. As a good gesture, Mr Nariman agreed to release 10,000 cusecs for six days, his submission was based on a precedent set in 2012-13. At that time, the court accepted our submission but this time the court ordered release of 15,000 cusecs of water for 10 days. Even if we had not agreed to release water as a goodwill gesture, the court would have directed us to do so.
Was our legal team unable to convince the court about the ground realities of Karnataka?
Mr. Nariman vehemently argued before the court stating that based on ground realities, the court should pass orders. He cited previous orders of the court where they had considered ground realities.
On what basis did the court repeatedly direct the state to release water to Tamil Nadu ?
Going through the series of orders of the Supreme Court, I feel it went by arithmetic consideration while passing orders.
What went wrong for Karnataka after the Supreme Court passed the first order on September 5?
We filed a modification petition but the court rejected it and suggested we approach Cauvery Supervisory Committee (CSC). The committee ordered Karnataka to release 3000 cusecs for ten days which the apex court increased to 6000 cusecs from September 21 to 27. If the issue had ended with the CSC order of releasing 3000 cusecs, the dispute would not have reached this level.
The CSC order was reasonable but Karnataka challenged it in the Supreme Court. Why ?
While passing its order, CSC did not consider the total water yield in Cauvery basin. Based on the South-West Monsoon, it directed Karnataka to release water to Tamil Nadu but it failed to consider the yield of North East Monsoon. We have to proportionately share 483 tmcfeet water with Tamil Nadu which should be based on the total water yield of 740 tmcfeet. In simple language, the proportionate sharing of water must be based on the yield of both South-West and North-East Monsoon.
The SC directed the release of 18,000 cusecs of water for three days inspite of the legislature’s resolution on September 28 but you again defied the order.
That order was also not implementable. We have to obey the resolution of the House, that’s why government was unable to release water. But Karnataka was wrongly portrayed at the national level with an impression gaining ground that it had no respect for judicial orders. You should remember that we complied with the earlier orders of the apex court.
Do the government do this to buy time and increase storage in its Cauvery basin reservoirs from 26.7 tmc feet to 34 fmc feet?
No, we adopted a straight approach as the order could not be implemented. Finally, we decided to release water for irrigation keeping in mind the storage of water in our reservoirs.
What are the preparation being made by Karnataka with the court set to hear the main petition on October 18?
We have challenged the 2007 Cauvery River Dispute Tribunal order and are prepared to argue before the court. Our main focus is on exposing Tamil Nadu’s undisclosed project. In the Tribunal order, 27 tmcft water was allocated to Tamil Nadu, for its undisclosed future project, we will raise this issue before the Supreme Court.
Did the Centre delay intervening in the Cauvery water dispute?
The Centre’s intervention was necessary to rectify its mistake. The Attorney General was unaware about the history of the dispute and the legal position when he agreed to the constitution of CRMB in four days. Then he admitted in the Supreme Court that he was unaware of 6 A (7) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act and the court stayed its earlier order on CRMB.
Your legal team has been blamed for the repeated adverse orders.
Mr Nariman is a great legal luminary not only in India , but in abroad too. He represented India at the hearing on international disputes. Karnataka appointed him as the legal counsel 35 years back, The leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party should know this. There was a reason behind Nariman saying he will not appear for Karnataka. After Karnataka defied the order on release of water, the Supreme Court was not ready to hear us. Without understanding all this, the opposition blamed our legal team.
Why has Karnataka delayed taking up Mekedatu project?
The decision was postponed after Tamil Nadu filed an Interlocutory Application (IA) before the court. So we felt we should not aggravate the matter in the midst of the court hearing. Before the main petition comes up in the Supreme Court, we will place details of the Mekedatu project before the Cabinet.
Your efforts to resolve the Cauvery dispute were widely appreciated in social media.
It is my duty to fight for Karnataka whether it is Cauvery, Krishna or Mahadayi. Our real fight starts now when the main petition comes up for hearing in the apex court on October 18.
