PM’s intervention is not going to solve this matter; everything depends on Goa, says Mohan Katarki

What do you have to say about the interim verdict?

It is highly disappointing. Goa has already been using 5 TMC of water from the Mahadeyi River which has around 199 TMC of water. So what is the big deal if we are asking for just 7 TMC of water? I don’t think the tribunal is even clear about our demands.

 

Is it true that Goa doesn’t want the PM to intervene?

PM’s intervention is not going to solve this matter; he has no statutory power when it comes to this issue.  Everything depends on Goa. At the most, the PM can only give a moral lecture to both the states to end this fight.

 

The tribunal had also accused that the detailed project report produced by you, failed to answer the questions raised by Goa about the capacity of water in the Mahadeyi reservoir. What do you have to say about that? 

 

A detailed scientific report was prepared by Prof. Ramprasad of IISc in our defence. However, we were not aware of the parameters that the tribunal was looking for. I don’t know why a detailed project report (DPR) is being given so much of importance. Even during the Krishna river controversy, the verdict was passed without the submission of a DPR.

 

But the tribunal said that lifting of 7 TMC of water from the river would have adverse environmental consequences 

 

We have come across many projects in the past which affects the environment to some extent. The question here is the intensity of the effect. The law speaks about sustainable development, and we had submitted a scientific report justifying our stand that lifting 7 TMC of water will not harm the environment in any manner. However, the tribunal was not convinced with our report.

Though the tribunal says that our demand is a threat to the environment, it doesn’t have a convincing explanation for its claim. 

 

Last year when Karnataka had decided to submit an interim petition, why did you and Fali Nariman stand against it?

 

Because we were expecting the final verdict to be passed within two years and we thought that the interim petition would not help us during the final verdict. Even CM agreed with our decision; however this year we had to submit a petition since the protests and agitations in north Karnataka were severe. 

 

Do you think that the political motive of our leaders have also pressurised the submission of the interim petition?

 

Somewhere we have failed as advocates when it comes to the Mahadeyi issue, and we take the whole responsibility of this unfavourable verdict. Submission of the interim petition was purely a political decision.  

 

Do you think the current verdict of the tribunal will affect the final verdict?

 

There are chances that it will affect the final verdict, but we have submitted 15-20 pieces of evidence justifying our report and claim. Hopefully, this evidence will make the tribunal change their mind. 

 

What will be your next step if the final verdict is not in your favour?

 

The government may advice us to file an appeal in the Supreme Court as the protests and agitations are growing day by day. By submitting an interim appeal, we have already taken an impulsive decision. If the Supreme Court dismisses our appeal, then it will be the greatest set back to the state. That dismissal would influence the final verdict of the tribunal. We can ask for an explanation concerning section 5(3), or we can wait till the final verdict.

 

What do you say about the intervention of PM?

According to our constitution, a tribunal is formed exclusively to deal cases of water disputes between states. Even during the Kaveri water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, we had asked PV Narasimha Rao, the then PM, to intervene. In response to our request, he said “In a federal system the Central government has no rights to dictate states. But it can always intervene if disputing states ask for intervention”.  Even today we follow what PV Narasimha Rao had said then, which is popularly known as the ‘Narasimha Rao Theory’.

Everyone in the state is talking about the fee you charge. And the opposition is blaming Nariman for the unfavourable verdict. How will you justify?

Well, it is quite natural. When a case fails everyone tries to blame the advocate and people of Karnataka, have every right to blame us. Nariman is world’s greatest advocate. We are fortunate enough that he is fighting for Karnataka. He has worked with almost every chief minister of the state. In fact he played a crucial role during the Krishna and Kaveri dispute; however, his efforts were not appreciated. Instead, CM Siddaramaiah got personal and made an offensive remark against the advocate saying that “Fali Nariman is too old”.