Though there is a general consensus among the states that the ambitious Rs 5.6 lakh crore rivers interlinking project would transform the economic face of the country unimaginably but some states through which the major rivers flow have given a “qualified” approval raising the question of federalism, the Supreme Court in its order has noted.
Of the 10 states which filed affidavits, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu have supported the concept of interlinking of rivers, Madhya Pradesh said that the matter should entirely be under the jurisdiction of Centre. Karnatka, Bihar, Assam and Sikkim have given their approval with certain “definite reservations”, the top court in its order recorded while dealing with the question of federalism arising out of the case.
Kerala is cited the lone state totally opposed the scheme on the ground that long-distance inter-basin water transfer is not possible from its territory, as the state needs more water to feed its “intricate” natural and man-made water channels network. The other states either failed to file the affidavits, or did not respond to the SC notice as they are not direct stake-holders in any of the proposed 32 link projects.
However, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia, dealing at length with the Centre-states and inter-state relations arising out of the matter, has pointed out that “primarily there is unanimity” between all concerned authorities, including the Centre and majority of the states, that the project would be very beneficial and transform the economy unimaginably.
In this regard, the court has referred to various reports of Central agencies, including ministry of water resources, its earlier “avatar” ministry of irrigation and the National Perspective Plan-1980, hailing the scheme. The SC said Centre’s own agencies had listed various other attached benefits like flood control, navigation, water supply, fisheries, pollution control, recreation facilities, employment generation, infrastructure and socio-economic development, which would change the face of the country’s economy.
The court said “we see no reason why the Central and state governments should not take interest in the execution of the project, particularly when, in various affidavits, filed by the Union and state governments, it has been affirmed that they are ‘very keen’ to implement it with greater sincerity”.