Krishna Tribunal commences hearing

New Delhi: The Krishna Waters Dispute Tribunal-II categorically rejected the Karnataka’s apprehensions over the Tribunal member, Justice Ram Mohan Reddy, in the bench, as he hailed from a State (Karnataka), which was a party to the dispute, and proceeded to take up the arguments here on Wednesday.
On Tuesday, the counsel for Karnataka, Anil Diwan, raised the locus standi of Justice Ram Mohan Reddy maintaining that the other States could disagree with any judgement delivered by the bench comprising him and hence, everyone should come to an agreement on it before proceeding with the arguments.
No other State opposed the same but Karnataka continued to raise the issue on the second day of the hearing too. Though Maharashtra and Telangana dismissed the suggestion outright, Andhra Pradesh left the decision to the Tribunal itself.
In what was perceived as a delay-tactic, Anil Diwan continued to argue that Karnataka was only interested in resolving the issue before hand to avoid trouble in future. “Though the decision to continue him in the bench could be taken by the panel itself, the judge in question could also make up his mind whether to recuse. There were such precedents and Justice Ram Mohan Reddy could prefer to opt for the same,” he said.
The Counsel for AP, A K Ganguly, urged the Tribunal to take a decision as the matter raised by Karnataka was of serious nature. However, both Maharashtra and Telangana maintained that they had no objection at all to the Judge continuing in the Tribunal as no law prohibited him from doing so.
Counsel Wasim Khadri, on behalf of the Centre clarified that Justice Ram Mohan Reddy’s nomination was in order and the proceedings should begin. Moreover, the Centre had no role in the nomination as it was done by the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Tribunal at this juncture expressed surprise at the Karnataka’s stand and wondered why it was not bothered to raise the issue earlier. Counsel Anil Diwan defended claiming that Karnataka was not objecting to the judge’s nomination but was only worried about the apprehensions. Justice Brijesh Kumar intervened to dismiss Karnataka arguments but allowed its opposition to be recorded.As soon as the arguments began, Karnataka continued its opposition to the Tribunal reconsidering its earlier allocation to the States, to emphasise the point that the Telugu-Speaking States should only share the waters allocated to the combined Andhra Pradesh. The arguments were on familiar lines that though the erstwhile State had been bifurcated, the geological position had not altered.