Two Supreme Court judges recently stepped aside from presiding over an argument regarding the dispersion of water rights from the Krishna River. This decision was made due to potential bias, as the states involved hold personal implications for these officials.
Recusal of Judges: An Overview
The act of retreating from a legal case or proceeding due to a personal interest conflict is known as recusal. Judges may remove themselves from hearing a particular case to avoid the possibility of bias. The absence of formal rules regulating recusals results in decisions being judged on a case-by-case basis.
For instance, the Supreme Court case Ranjit Thakur v Union of India (1987), set the precedent that suspicion of bias needs to be viewed from the perspective of the party involved. Whether the judge is deemed to be biased or not, is based on the party’s reasonable apprehensions.
Genesis of the Conflict: A Deep Dive into 2021 Events
This dispute emanates from the year 2021 when Andhra Pradesh accused the Telangana government of unlawfully depriving it of its share of water from the Srisailam reservoir. Conflict primarily revolves around the use of this reservoir’s water by Telangana for power generation. Furthermore, Andhra Pradesh alleged that Telangana refuted decisions made by the apex council constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, directions of Krishna River Management Board (KRMB), and directives of the Centre.
Backstory: The Role of Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal
The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was established in 1969 to resolve water disputes. It presented its report in 1973 and was further given the power to review its order after May 31, 2000.
The second KWDT, constituted in 2004, allocated Krishna water resources among Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh in its 2010 report. This allocation led to Andhra Pradesh challenging the decision. After Telangana’s creation, Andhra Pradesh insisted on revising the allocation among the new four states instead of the original three.
Legal Mandates and Constitutional Framework
According to Article 262 of the Constitution, inter-state water disputes adjudications are valid. Consequently, two laws, the River Boards Act (1956) and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act (1956), were enacted by Parliament. These laws allow for the central government to form river boards and ad hoc tribunals to manage and arbitrate inter-state river issues. Naturally, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has jurisdiction over matters referred to these tribunals under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act.
Understanding the Krishna River: It’s Origin and Drainage
The Krishna River, which originates near Mahabaleshwar (Satara) in Maharashtra, is the second-largest in peninsular India after the Godavari River. The river spans Maharashtra, North Karnataka, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh before emptying into the Bay of Bengal. Its tributaries include Tungabhadra, Mallaprabha, Koyna, Bhima, Ghataprabha, Yerla, Warna, Dindi, Musi, and Dudhganga.
Strategies for Resolution and Way Forward
A feasible solution could be establishing a permanent tribunal with the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. An immediate objective for any constitutional government should involve amending Article 262 and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, and implementing them equally. Rethinking our water management strategies at a national level, improved communication and adequate representation of states by the centre’s constituted body are essential for protecting their water interests.