Telangana urges KWDT-II to rectify anomaly of assured irrigation compared to A.P. in Krishna Basin
Telangana has requested the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal-II, chaired by Justice Brijesh Kumar, to rectify the anomaly of only 15% of the cultivable area in the Krishna Basin in the State being provided irrigation with assured water as against 95% in Andhra Pradesh.
Presenting Telangana's argument before the Tribunal on Friday, senior counsel appearing for the State C.S. Vaidyanathan said given the rainfall variability and uncertainty, crop production is unviable and at least only irrigated-dry (ID) crop is needed to sustain the livelihood of farmers and farm workers in the backward areas of Telangana.
He suggested that greater economy in use of water for irrigation should be considered by A.P. keeping in view the national policy of more crop per drop as Telangana has adopted the method of irrigating about 12,800 acres per tmc ft of water for ongoing projects, while A.P. had earmarked a higher usage of water — one tmc ft for irrigating just 8,400 acres under its existing projects.
The counsel for Telangana also brought to the Tribunal's notice that KWDT-I Award held that 'in equitable allocation, future uses requiring diversion of water outside the basin are relevant but more weight should be given to uses requiring diversion of water inside the basin'. The future projects considered by KWDT-I are projects taken up after September 1960 and it allocated water to only inside basin projects under the head.
However, the erstwhile A.P. had reallocated water to Srisailam Right Bank Canal project instead of reallocating it to inside basin project such as Srisailam Left Bank Canal project. The counsel stressed the need to revise the allocations made to SRBC as per KWDT-I Award.
He also explained before the Tribunal (KWDT-II) how SLBC was deprived water allocation by the erstwhile A.P. while SRBC was taken up from assured water and argued for allocation of dependable water to SLBC, an inside basin project.
Further, he also brought to the Tribunal's notice how erstwhile A.P. had placed before KWDT-I the demand for water for Jurala in the second priority set of projects and SLBC under set of surplus water based projects, while the projects as K.C Canal and Krishna Delta System with additional areas serving the outside basin were put under first priority set for allocation of dependable water.
Telangana's argument was also heard by Members of KWDT-II Justice Ram Mohan Reddy and Justice S. Talapatra along with Chairman Justice Brijesh Kumar. The Tribunal posted the further hearing of Telangana's arguments for July 23 to 25.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
CBFC can't decide film titles, says Kerala High Court
KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Monday observed that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) cannot dictate film titles or storylines to directors and artists. Justice N Nagaresh made this remark while hearing a petition from Cosmos Entertainments, the producer of the film "JSK - Janaki vs State of Kerala," starring Union Minister Suresh Gopi. The petition sought a directive to the CBFC to issue a censor certificate for the film. The court directed the CBFC to clarify its objections to the film's title, "Janaki," and emphasised that the case cannot be indefinitely adjourned. The hearing has been scheduled for July 2. During the hearing, the court questioned the rationale behind the CBFC's objection to the title and character name "Janaki. "What is wrong with the title or the name of the character 'Janaki'? That is the freedom of artists. You (CBFC) cannot interfere in that. The freedom not absolute, but the Board must have a convincing reason to show how the name 'Janaki' is contemptuous of racial, religious, or other groups," said the court. The court noted that in the film, 'Janaki' is portrayed as a heroine fighting for justice. In India, many names have religious significance, whether they are Hindu, Christian, or Muslim such as Ahamed, Anthony, and Raman. "80 percent of names in India have religious connotations. Now, will the Board dictate to directors and artists what names they should use and what stories they should tell? Is that correct?" the court asked.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
Kolkata law college rape case: 3 PILs filed at Calcutta High Court — ‘Demand urgent hearing, probe led by retired judge'
On Monday, three PILs were filed at the Calcutta High Court on an alleged incident of rape in a law college in South Kolkata. Mentioned before the division bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Smita Das De, the PILs have been permitted and the matter is likely to be heard on Thursday. In the pleas, the counsels moved for an urgent hearing and an investigation into the case under the monitoring of the Calcutta High Court, headed by a retired judge. Another plea was for the increase of security in various colleges of the state and regular status reports on such security. On June 27, the day of the alleged rape, a lawyer of the Calcutta High Court had urged Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam to take suo moto cognisance of the case, arguing that the 'state machinery' will otherwise 'continue its descent into callous inertia, and evidence may be destroyed, witnesses may be silenced, and justice will be permanently derailed'. In his letter, advocate Souma Subhra Ray asked the High Court to make five considerations. Firstly, he requested the Court to issue directions for a court-monitored, independent criminal investigation, preferably by the CBI, to ensure an 'impartial probe'. Secondly, he asked for the constitution of a judicial commission headed by a retired judge of the court to investigate the 'institutional, administrative, and security failures' that allowed the incident. The advocate also requested the court to direct the West Bengal government and the university authorities to undertake immediate audits of safety and surveillance systems across all law colleges and higher educational institutions, with special attention to the enforcement of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 and UGC safety guidelines. Advocate Ray also called for an explanation from the police and local administration on the use of force against peaceful protesters after the incident and the 'denial of democratic expression'. Finally, Ray asked the court to issue appropriate interim directions to safeguard evidence and ensure witness protection in the case. Meanwhile, at the Alipore Police Court, a request has been made for the recording of the statements of the victim's parents as the parents have given consent. On Saturday, the statement of the victim under section 183 of the BNSS was recorded in front of the Magistrate at Alipore Police Court.
New Indian Express
11 hours ago
- New Indian Express
SC orders release of law student from preventive detention under NSA
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court recently directed the immediate release of a 24-year-old law student hailing from Madhya Pradesh who had been under preventive detention for nearly a year under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), after noting that detention of the appellant, was 'wholly untenable'. The top court ordered that the petitioner (appellant) Annu alias Aniket, be released immediately from Central Jail, Bhopal, if he was not required in any other criminal case. A two-judge vacation bench of the top court, led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vinod Chandran observed that the grounds mentioned in the order, which include disruption of law and order did not satisfy the requirements of Section 3(2) of the NSA. 'We are of the view that the reasons for which he has been taken into preventive detention does not satisfy the requirement of Sub Section(2) of Section 3 of the NSA, 1980. Preventive detention of the appellant, therefore, becomes wholly untenable', the court said. Section 3(2) empowers the Union and state governments to order preventive detention of a person. The petitioner, had been booked following an altercation on June 14, 2024, at a university campus in Betul, after he allegedly clashed with a professor. Following this, an FIR was filed for attempt to murder and other offences against Annu, forcing him to surrender on June 16 and was placed in judicial custody. While in jail, the NSA detention order was issued against him. This order was later confirmed and extended every three months. The Court noted that the detention order had been extended four times, with the last extension valid till July 12, 2025. After hearing Annu's appeal, the apex court said, 'At the most, these are all issues of law and order. 'Public order' is something bigger'.
