Death Penalty
Context:
A special court awarded the death penalty to 38 convicts and sentenced 11 others to life imprisonment until death, for the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts in which 56 persons were killed and over 200 injured.
- Special court termed it ‘rarest of rare’ case.
Relevance:
GS-II: Polity and Constitution (Judiciary, Important Judgements)
Dimensions of the Article:
- What is Death Penalty/Capital Punishment?
- Capital Punishment in India
- Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) judgement on Capital Punishment
- How capital punishment goes against the Principle of Natural justice?
- Bringing up Collective conscience of society
- What is Collective Conscience of Society?
- J.S. Verma Committee and A P Shah Committee
What is Death Penalty/Capital Punishment?
- Capital punishment, also called the death penalty, is the execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offence.
- It is the highest penalty awardable to an accused.
- Generally, it is awarded in extremely severe cases of murder, rapes, treason etc.
Arguments in Favour of Death Penalty
- Arguments along the lines of “Retribution” state that real justice requires people to suffer for their wrongdoing and to suffer in a way appropriate for the crime. One of the key principles of retribution is that people should get what they deserve in proportion to the severity of their crime.
- Capital punishment is often justified with the argument that by executing convicted murderers, we will deter would-be murderers from killing people.
- It is often argued that the death penalty provides closure for victims’ families.
- There are many examples of persons condemned to death taking the opportunity of the time before execution to repent, express remorse, and very often experience profound spiritual rehabilitation.
Arguments Against Death Penalty
- The statistical evidence doesn’t confirm that deterrence works. Some capital crimes are committed in such an emotional state that the perpetrator did not think about the possible consequences. Death has been prescribed in rape cases since 2013 (Sec. 376A of IPC), still, rapes continue to happen and in fact, the brutality of rapes has increased manifold. This compels one to think of the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime.
- The most common argument against capital punishment is that sooner or later, innocent people may get killed, because of mistakes or flaws in the justice system. According to Amnesty International – “As long as human justice remains fallible, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.”
- People who oppose Capital punishment are of the view that retribution is immoral, and it is just a sanitised form of vengeance.
- Death has been abolished as a form of punishment in most of the developed countries. The UN Secretary General’s report on the death penalty presented to the Human Rights Council held that “some 170 States have abolished or introduced a moratorium on the death penalty either in law or in practice, or have suspended executions for more than 10 years”.
- Capital punishment doesn’t rehabilitate the prisoner and return them to society.
Capital Punishment in India
- Prior to the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Cr PC) of 1955, the death penalty was the rule and life imprisonment an exception in India. Further, the courts were bound to give an explanation for awarding a lighter penalty than death for capital offences.
- After the amendment of 1955 courts were at liberty to grant either death or life imprisonment. As per Section 354 (3) of the Cr PC, 1973 the courts are required to state reasons in writing for awarding the maximum penalty.In concurrence of this, a proposal for the scrapping of the death penalty was rejected by the Law Commission in its 35th report 1967.
- The Indian Penal Code prescribes ‘death’ for offences such as
- Waging war against the Government of India. (Sec. 121);
- Abetting mutiny actually committed (Sec. 132);
- Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death. (Sec. 194);
- Murder (Sec. 302);
- Direct or indirect abetment of sati is punishable with Death penalty under the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987.
- Under SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 giving false evidence leading to the execution of an innocent member belonging to the SC or ST would attract the death penalty.
- Besides these, rape of a minor below 12 years of age is punishable with death under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
- Financing, producing, manufacturing as well as the sale of certain drugs attracts the death penalty for repeat offenders under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Army, Navy and Air Force Acts also provide the death penalty for certain specified offences committed by members of the armed forces.
Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) judgement on Capital Punishment
- The Supreme Court in its 1980 judgment in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, where a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court was called upon to decide the constitutional validity of the capital punishment, had laid down the framework for sentencing to death.
- The Supreme court had made it very clear that Capital punishment in India can be given only in rarest of rare cases.
- It required the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to both the circumstances of the offence and the offender, to decide whether a person should be sentenced to death or given life imprisonment.
- According to the Bachan Singh judgment, for a case to be eligible for the death sentence, the aggravating circumstances must outweigh the mitigating circumstances.
- If the alternative punishment of life imprisonment can be “unquestionably foreclosed”, Only then can death penalty be imposed.
- The Bachan Singh judgement recognized the age of the accused as a relevant mitigating circumstance.
- While stating that honour killings fall within the “rarest of the rare” category, Court has recommended the death penalty be extended to those found guilty of committing “honour killings”, which deserve to be a capital crime.
- The Supreme Court also recommended death sentences to be imposed on police officials who commit police brutality in the form of encounter killings.
How capital punishment goes against the Principle of Natural justice?
- The first element, ‘protection of society,’ is not served by imposing the death sentence any better than by incarceration. This has been proven time and again as inmates have spent decades on death row, harming no one, but being brutalised by the inhuman punishment meted out to them.
- Second, there are several factors which affect criminal activity and deterrence is only one of them.
- In a UN survey, it was concluded that “capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than the threat of life imprisonment.”
- It is not just statistics that prove the case against deterrence, so does logic. A reasonable man is deterred not by the gravity of the sentence but by the detectability of the crime.
- Third, the facet of ‘reform and rehabilitation of the criminal’ is immediately nullified by the prospect of capital punishment
- This leaves only the final element — ‘the retributive effect’. Killing should never be carried out based on the primal and emotive desire among human beings for revenge. Revenge is a personalised and emotional form of retribution, which often loses sight of proportionality.
Bringing up Collective conscience of society
- ‘Collective conscience of society’ as a ground to justify death penalty was first used by the Supreme Court in the 1983 judgment of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab.
- In that case, the court held that when “collective conscience of society is shocked, it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty”.
- ‘Collective Conscience of Society’ was also used in 2005 judgment in the Parliament attack case in which it awarded capital punishment to convict, Afzal Guru and 2017 judgment of the Supreme Court in the December 2012 Delhi gang rape case of Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi.
What is Collective Conscience of Society?
- Collective consciousness (sometimes collective conscience or conscious) is a fundamental sociological concept that refers to the set of shared beliefs, ideas, attitudes, and knowledge that are common to a social group or society.
- The collective consciousness informs our sense of belonging and identity, and our behavior.
- In general, it does not refer to the specifically moral conscience, but to a shared understanding of social norms.
- However, some experts say “Collective Conscience of Society”’ is an amorphous term, and is not possible to judicially determine what it means.
J.S. Verma Committee and A P Shah Committee
- The Justice Verma Committee, which was formed days after the horrific Nirbhaya gangrape case in Delhi in December 2012 to review criminal law related to sexual assault, batted for enhanced punishment, including imprisoning one for the remainder of hi…
- Justice J S Verma Committee and Law Commission had argued against executions, viewing it as a “regressive step” even in rarest of rare cases, as punishment “cannot be reduced to vengeance”.
- The Justice Verma Committee said, “in the larger interests of society, and having regard to the current thinking in favour of abolition of the death penalty, and also to avoid the argument of any sentencing arbitrariness, we are not inclined to recommend the death penalty”.
- The ‘262nd Report: The Death Penalty’ by the Commission headed by Justice (Retd) A P Shah in 2015 wanted abolition of death penalty for all crimes except terror cases while hoping that the move towards absolute abolition will be “swift and irreversible”.
–
India-UAE Virtual Summit
Context:
India and UAE signed the historic Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) aimed at boosting the merchandise trade between the two countries to US$ 100 billion over next five years. The deal was signed during the virtual summit meeting between Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi and H.E. Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi.
Relevance:
GS-III: Indian Economy (International trade), GS-II: International Relations (Foreign Policies and Agreements Affecting India’s Interests)
Dimensions of the Article:
- Highlights of Virtual Summit:
- About India’s CEPA agreements
- India-UAE Relations
- Recent Developments in India-UAE relations
Highlights of Virtual Summit:
- Hon’ble Prime Minister and His Highness the Crown Prince issued a Joint Vision Statement “Advancing the India and UAE Comprehensive Strategic Partnership: New Frontiers, New Milestone”.
- The Statement establishes a roadmap for a future-oriented partnership between India and UAE and identifies focus areas and outcomes.
- The shared objective is to promote new trade, investment and innovation dynamic in diverse sectors, including economy, energy, climate action, emerging technologies, skills and education, food security, healthcare and defence and security.
- A major highlight of the Virtual Summit was the signing and exchange of the India-UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) by Minister of Commerce and Industry of India and Minister of Economy of UAE, H.E.
- The Agreement will provide significant benefits to Indian and UAE businesses, including enhanced market access and reduced tariffs.
- It is expected that the CEPA will lead to increase in bilateral trade from the current USD 60 bn to USD 100 bn in the next 5 years.
- The two Leaders also released Joint Commemorative Stamp on the occasion of 75th anniversary of India’s independence and 50th year of UAE’s foundation.
- Two MOUs signed between Indian and UAE entities were also announced during the Summit.
- MOU between APEDA and DP World & Al Dahra on Food Security Corridor Initiative
- MOU between India’s Gift City and Abu Dhabi Global Market on cooperation in financial projects and services.
- Two other MOUs – one on cooperation in Climate Action and the other on Education have also been agreed between the two sides.
About India’s CEPA agreements
- India has signed CEPAs with South Korea and Japan and the one with UAE is expected to increase bilateral trade in goods to USD 100 billion within five years of the signed agreement and increase trade in services to USD 15 billion, leading to wider social and economic opportunities in both nations.
- CEPAs are a kind of free trade pacts but these agreements or cooperation agreements are more comprehensive than Free Trade Agreements.
- CEPA usually covers negotiation on the trade in services and investment, and other areas of economic partnership. It may even consider negotiation on areas such as trade facilitation and customs cooperation, competition, and Intellectual Property Rights. It also looks into the regulatory aspect of trade and encompasses an agreement covering the regulatory issues.
Difference between CECA and CEPA
- CECA – Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement
- CEPA – Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement
- The major “technical” difference between a CECA and CEPA is that CECA involve only “tariff reduction/elimination in a phased manner on listed/all items except the negative list and tariff rate quota (TRQ) items. CEPA also covers the trade in services and investment and other areas of economic partnership”.
- Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement is a wider term than Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and has the widest coverage.
India-UAE Relations
- The UAE and India had enjoyed close and friendly ties based on historic and cultural ties. People-to-people contacts and barter trade for clothes and spices from India in exchange for dates and pearls from the region have existed for centuries.
- India–United Arab Emirates (UAE) relations have a strong basis on the fact that Indians make up the largest minority ethnic group in the UAE making up roughly 38% of UAE’s total residents.
- The UAE is India’s top trading partner in the entire West Asia and North Africa region.
- Indian exports to the UAE account for 6% of India’s global exports.
- UAE has been one of India’s leading sources of FDIs – UAE is the eighth-largest investor in India. Also, investment by Indian companies in the UAE is valued at around $85 billion.
- UAE is India’s third largest trade partner after China and the United States.
- The UAE accounts for 8 percent of India’s oil imports and was fifth largest supplier of crude oil to India.
- Major exports to the UAE comprise of stones, petroleum products, precious metals, gems and jewellery, minerals, food items like sugar, cereals, fruits & vegetables, meat, tea, meat & seafood, textiles, chemicals and engineering & machinery products.
- India imports crude petroleum and petroleum products, precious metals, minerals, stones, gems & jewellery, chemicals & wood and wood products from UAE.
- Another significant pillar of India-UAE ties is reflected in their growing cooperation in security and defense sector.
Other Recent Developments in India-UAE relations
- Since 2014, India has worked with UAE on various counter-terrorism issues.
- In 2018, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between India and the UAE on Technical Cooperation in the Rail Sector. It provided a platform for Indian Railways to interact and share their latest developments and knowledge in the railway sector.
- In 2018, Indian PM Modi described UAE’s humanitarian support for those affected by the Kerala floods that year as “[reflecting] the special ties between governments and people of India and UAE”.
- 2021, UAE and India signed an agreement under which faculty members from Indian universities will spend six to 10 months every year for undertaking research and teaching social sciences in Abu Dhabi. This agreement was aimed at deepening the academic and cultural ties between the two nations.
- India-UAE relations has become a pivot of India’s Extended Neighborhood and Look West Policy in the region.
- The recent signing of The Abraham Accords have created a fresh opportunity for even greater India-UAE coordination and cooperation.
Krishna Water Dispute
Context:
The Supreme Court asked if the States of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka could amicably settle their quarrel over the allocation of the Krishna river water.
Relevance:
GS-II: Polity and Constitution (Inter-State relations, Functions & responsibilities of the Union and the States, Issues and challenges of federal structure), GS-I: Geography (Water sources)
Dimensions of the Article:
- About Krishna River
- Major Inter-State River Disputes in India
- Active River Water Dispute Tribunals in India
- Constitutional and legal provisions related to water disputes
- Issues with Interstate Water Dispute Tribunals
Krishna River
- The Krishna is an east-flowing river.
- Originates at Mahabaleshwar in Maharashtra and merges with the Bay of Bengal
- Flows through Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.
- Together with its tributaries, it forms a vast basin that covers 33% of the total area of the four states.
- The principal tributaries joining Krishna are the Ghataprabha, the Malaprabha, the Bhima, the Tungabhadra and the Musi.
- Most of this basin comprises a rolling and undulating country, except for the western border, which is formed by an unbroken line of the Western Ghats.
- The important soil types found in the basin are black soils, red soils, laterite and lateritic soils, alluvium, mixed soils, red and black soils and saline and alkaline soils
Krishna Water dispute
- The States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have been locked in a battle of sorts over the utilisation of Krishna water, with Andhra Pradesh proposing a few projects and in turn, Telangana coming up with half-a-dozen projects of its own.
- Both States have their own justification to pursue new water and power projects as several areas await economic development.
- Rayalaseema is a dry region and it was grievances over poor utilisation of the two rivers in then undivided Andhra Pradesh that was a factor that led to the bifurcation.
- At the same time, the two States should instead focus on water and energy conservation and improving the efficiency of irrigation schemes and hydel reservoirs.
- Telangana had held the view that the notification should flow from finalisation by a tribunal on Krishna water sharing by the two States that would enlarge the scope of reference of the existing Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal (KWDT)-II. Telangana had even moved the Supreme Court but the Centre said it would consider Telangana’s request only if it withdrew its petition which it did.
Major Inter-State River Disputes in India
| River (s) | States |
| Ravi and Beas | Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan |
| Narmada | Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan |
| Krishna | Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana |
| Vamsadhara | Andhra Pradesh & Odisha |
| Cauvery | Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry |
| Godavari | Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha |
| Mahanadi | Chhattisgarh, Odisha |
| Mahadayi | Goa, Maharashtra, Karnataka |
| Periyar | Tamil Nadu, Kerala |
Active River Water Dispute Tribunals in India
- Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal II (2004) – Karnataka, Telangana, Andra Pradesh, Maharashtra
- Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal (2018) – Odisha & Chattisgarh
- Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal (2010) – Goa,Karnataka, Maharashtra
- Ravi & Beas Water Tribunal (1986) – Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan
- Vansadhara Water Disputes Tribunal (2010) – Andra Pradesh & Odisha.
Constitutional and legal provisions related to water disputes
- Article 262(1) provides that Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter State river or river valley.
- Article 262(2) empowers Parliament with the power to provide by law that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint.
- Under Article 262, two acts were enacted:
- River Boards Act 1956: It was enacted with a declaration that centre should take control of regulation and development of Inter-state rivers and river valleys in public interest. However, not a single river board has been constituted so far.
- The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (IRWD Act) confers a power upon union government to constitute tribunals to resolve such disputes. It also excludes jurisdiction of Supreme Court over such disputes.
- Despite Article 262, the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction to adjudicate water disputes, provided that the parties first go to water tribunal and then if they feel that the order is not satisfactory only then they can approach supreme Court under article 136.
- The article 136 gives discretion to allow leave to appeal against order, decree, judgment passed by any Court or tribunal in India.
Issues with Interstate Water Dispute Tribunals
- Interstate Water Dispute Tribunals are riddled with Protracted proceedings and extreme delays in dispute resolution.
- For example, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, constituted in 1990, gave its final award in 2007.
- Interstate Water dispute tribunals also have opacity in the institutional framework and guidelines that define these proceedings and ensure compliance.
- There is no time limit for adjudication. In fact, delay happens at the stage of constitution of tribunals as well.
- Though award is final and beyond the jurisdiction of Courts, either States can approach Supreme Court under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) under Article 32 linking issue with the violation of Article 21 (Right to Life). In the event the Tribunal holding against any Party, that Party is quick to seek redressal in the Supreme Court. Only three out of eight Tribunals have given awards accepted by the States.
- The composition of the tribunal is not multidisciplinary and it consists of persons only from the judiciary.
- No provision for an adequate machinery to enforce the award of the Tribunal.
- Lack of uniform standards- which could be applied in resolving such disputes.
- Lack of adequate resources- both physical and human, to objectively assess the facts of the case.
- Lack of retirement or term- mentioned for the chairman of the tribunals.
- The absence of authoritative water data that is acceptable to all parties currently makes it difficult to even set up a baseline for adjudication.
- The shift in tribunals’ approach, from deliberative to adversarial, aids extended litigation and politicisation of water-sharing disputes.
- The growing nexus between water and politics have transformed the disputes into turfs of vote bank politics.
Mullaperiyar Dam Dispute
Context:
After a statement by Kerala governor that the state will go ahead with the plan — and discussions with Tamil Nadu — to build a new dam in Mullaperiyar for the “safety of people”, the Tamil Nadu government issued a statement, strongly condemning the Kerala stand and calling it “contrary to the Supreme Court’s May 2014 order”.
- The Supreme Court on May 7, 2014 allowed Tamil Nadu to raise the water level in the controversial Mullaperiyar dam to 142 feet (43.28 m). The court quashed the Kerala Irrigation Water Conservation Act 2006 that restricted raising the water level in the dam above 136 feet (41.45 m) on safety grounds.
Relevance:
GS-II: Polity and Constitution (Interstate water disputes), GS-I: Geography (Water Sources), GS-III: Disaster management
Dimensions of the Article:
- About Mullaperiyar Dam
- About the Dispute regarding Mullaperiyar river
- Recent developments regarding Mullaperiyar dam risk
- Background on Dams in India
- Ageing dams in India: Highlights of the UN Report
- Issues with Ageing Dams in India
- Way Forward
About Mullaperiyar Dam
- The Mullaperiyar Dam is a masonry gravity dam on the Periyar River in Kerala – built at the confluence of Mullayar and Periyar rivers.
- It is located on the Cardamom Hills of the Western Ghats and it was constructed between 1887 and 1895 (by John Pennycuick).
- The Periyar National Park in Thekkady is located around the dam’s reservoir.
- The catchment area of the Mullaperiyar Dam itself lies entirely in Kerala and it is argued that it is not an inter-State river, however, by the principle of estoppel (new argument cannot be against previous action/agreemet/statement) it is considered otherwise.
- In a report published in 2021, the dam was identified as one among the world’s big dams which needs to be decommissioned due to being ‘situated in a seismically active area with significant structural flaws and poses risk to 3.5 million people if the 100+ years old dam were to fail’.
About the Dispute regarding Mullaperiyar river
- The dam is located in Kerala on the river Periyar, but is operated and maintained by the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu.
- For Tamil Nadu, the Mullaperiyar dam acts as a lifeline for Theni, Madurai, Sivaganga, Dindigul and Ramnad districts, providing water for irrigation and drinking, and also for the generation of power in Lower Periyaru Power Station.
- While Kerala has pointed out the unfairness in the 1886 lease agreement and has challenged its validity, Tamil Nadu has insisted on exercising the unfettered colonial rights to control the dam and its waters, based on the 1886 lease agreement.
- There is also the issue of concerns regarding the ageing Mullaperiyar dam (including alleged leaks and cracks in the structure) have been repeatedly raised by the Kerala Government while the Tamil Nadu governments have sought to downplay these concerns.
- While Tamil Nadu has sought to increase the limit of maximum water level in the dam to 152 ft, Kerala has strongly argued against such a move citing safety concerns.
- Kerala’s proposal for decommissioning the dam and constructing a new one has been challenged by Tamil Nadu.
Rule of Curve issue
- A rule curve or rule level specifies the storage or empty space to be maintained in a reservoir during different times of the year.
- It decides the fluctuating storage levels in a reservoir.
- The gate opening schedule of a dam is based on the rule curve. It is part of the “core safety” mechanism in a dam.
- The TN government often blames Kerala for delaying the finalization of the rule curve.
Background on Dams in India
- India has 4,407 large dams, the third highest number in the world after China (23,841) and the USA (9,263).
- India is ranked third in the world in terms of building large dams.
- Tehri Dam in Uttarakhand is the highest dam in India built on Bhagirathi River.
- Hirakud Dam in Odisha built on river Mahanadi is the longest dam of India.
- Kallanai Dam in Tamil Nadu is the oldest dam of India. It is built on the Kaveri River and is about 2000 years old.
Ageing dams in India: Highlights of the UN Report
- India is ranked third in the world in terms of building large dams.
- Over a thousand large dams in India will be roughly 50-years-old in 2025 and such aging structures pose a growing threat.
- There are also more than four thousand large dams in the country that will be over 50-years-old in 2050 and 64 large dams will be more than 150-years-old in 2050.
- Ageing signs include increasing cases of dam failures, progressively increasing costs of dam repair and maintenance, increasing reservoir sedimentation, and loss of a dam’s functionality and effectiveness, “strongly interconnected” manifestations
- Krishna Raja Sagar dam was built in 1931 and is now 90 years old.
- Mettur dam was constructed in 1934 and is now 87 years old.
- The report said that approximately 3.5 million people are at risk if India’s Mullaperiyar dam in Kerala, built over 100 years ago, “were to fail”.
Issues with Ageing Dams in India
- As dams age, soil replaces the water in the reservoirs. Therefore, the storage capacity cannot be claimed to be the same as it was in the 1900s and 1950s.
- Studies show that the design of many of India’s reservoirs is flawed in the sense that the designs underestimate the rate of siltation and overestimate live storage capacity created.
- When soil replaces the water in reservoirs, supply gets choked. The cropped area begins receiving less and less water as time progresses.
- The net sown water area either shrinks in size or depends on rains or groundwater, which is overexploited.
- The designed flood cushions within several reservoirs across many river basins may have already depleted substantially due to which floods have become more frequent downstream of dams.
Way Forward
- Assuring the safety of the downstream population should be the topmost priority in this scenario. The remaining works to strengthen the Mullaperiyar dam are to be done at the earliest.
- There is a need to assure Kerala that all the instruments for monitoring the safety and health of the dam are installed and are functioning properly.
- As there are sufficient scientific and technological tools to respond effectively to any legitimate and genuine concern, every stakeholder should adopt a rational approach while deciding on the storage levels and safety aspects of the dam.
