Capt finds solace in Narmada Tribunal’s report
S P Singh
Chandigarh:
OUT to strengthen Punjab’s case on the river waters sharing, Chief Minister Amarinder Singh seems to be either studying a lot of case law or has his lawyers plying him with examples which he can quote liberally to buttress his point on the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act 2004.
Amarinder today quoted the ruling of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal, saying it had rejected the claim of Rajasthan to become a party to the Narmada dispute on the grounds that Rajasthan was not a co-riparian state of Narmada. Officials said that this was being seen as a case very relevant to Punjab’s plea that a non-riparian state cannot claim a right to waters of a riparian state.
While the CM did not share the details with the media, and was satisfied with quoting a half-sentence and flashing a copy for the benefit of TV channel cameras, The Indian Express found that the reference was to the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal report’s Volume III wherein the Tribunal has dwelt in detail upon a reference to it by the Centre regarding making Rajasthan a party to the Narmada dispute.
Set up under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956, the Tribunal commented on a complaint of Rajasthan referred to it by the Central Government on 16.10.1969, ten days after the Centre referred to the Tribunal the entire row among Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat and held that non-riparian Rajasthan’s plea to become a party was ultra vires.
Observing that the Union Government argued making Rajasthan a party to ensure broader socio-economic development, the Tribunal held: “The State of Rajasthan is not entitled to any portion of the waters of Narmada basin on the ground that the state of Rajasthan is not a co-riparian state or that no portion of its territory is situated in the basin of River Narmada.”
The Tribunal also held the very action of the Central Government of making a reference to it of Rajasthan’s plea as ultra vires. “We also hold that the Reference of the Central Government No 10/1/69-WD dated 16.10.1969 in referring the complaint of Rajasthan to this Tribunal for adjudication under Section 5 of the 1956 Act is ultra vires of the 1956 Act,” it commented.
Answering the Centre’s plea of making Rajasthan a party on the grounds of ensuring socio-economic development, the Tribunal said: “The contention of the Union of India is not really to the point. The question before the Tribunal is not whether trans-basin transfer of waters is desirable from the socio-economic point of view but whether under the Constitution of India and on a proper interpretation of the 1956 Act, the State through whose territory an inter-state river does not flow is entitles in law to a share in the equitable distribution of its waters. The question is not what is desirable but what is possible to be done within the present constitutional framework,” the Tribunal remarked.
July 16, 2004