Business Standard

Cauvery: Centre seeks time, Tamil Nadu for contempt action

IANS  |  New Delhi 

In a bid to buy time, the on Saturday moved the filing a clarification petition and asking for three months for implementing its judgment in view of the May assembly elections in while the government sought contempt proceedings against the Centre for its failure to constitute (CMB) and (CWRC) as directed by the top court.

The top court by its February 16 judgment had directed the Centre to constitute within six weeks the and for the implementation of the Award for which the deadline expired on Friday.

The Centre felt that constitution of a scheme under Section 6(A) of the Inter-state River Waters Disputes Act and notification during the assembly election process would lead to massive public outrage, vitiate election process and cause and order problems.

But said the was deliberately delaying the implementation of the court order and contempt proceedings should be initiated against it.

"Initiate contempt proceedings against respondents (the central government) for willful disobedience in carrying out clear mandate set out in para 403 of the judgment passed by the honourable court dated 16-02-2018," the contempt plea said.

The in its affidavit filed a day after the six-week deadline ended on Friday said due to divergent views expressed by four governments, including and Tamil Nadu, on the "framing of the scehme", it is felt that if any scheme was framed by the by itself the states may again approach the court.

Citing the stands of and governments that any scheme proposed under the inter-state water disputes act should first be shared with them before its notification, the Centre said: "To avoid further litigation by the states in the constitution and functions of the board, it is felt that clarification from the honourable is considered necessary."

Referring to the announcement of polls by the Election Commission, it said: "Cauvery is a very emotive issue in and in the past, the issue had led to and order situation, leading to avoidable loss of human lives and property."

It also wanted to know whether the had the flexibility to modify the composition of the board to a mixture of administrative and technical body and not purely a technical body for effective conduct of the business of the board and considering overall sensitivity of the issues involved.

Another clarification it wanted was whether the board framed under 6(A) of the act can have functions different from the ones recommended for by the tribunal.

The Centre said in compliance of the February 6 order of the court and in spirit of true federalism, it convened a meeting of the Chief Secretaries of the four states and other officials and initiated consultations for arriving at a consensus.

It said divergent views were expressed by the states. indicated that the scheme as mentioned by the has been defined in Section 6 which is to implement the final order of the tribunal.

Puducherry and gave similar views but was of the opinion that the has left the contents of the scheme to the discretion of the

contended that the Scheme contemplated in the judgment is a dispute resolution body as distinct from the management or regulation recommended by the tribunal. Therefore the question of asking to submit indent does not and should not arise for consideration.

It also contended that the has not endorsed or approved the board in its judgment.

The top court by its February 16 verdict had reduced the Tamil Nadu's share of Cauvery water from 177.25 thousand million cubic feet (TMC), which was less than 192 TMC allocated by a tribunal in 2007. On the other hand, Karnataka's share of water was increased by 14.75 TMC.

"We direct that a scheme shall be framed by the within a span of six weeks from today so that the authorities under the scheme can see to it that the present decision which has modified the award passed by the Tribunal is smoothly made functional and the rights of the states as determined by us are appositely carried out," the top court said in its February 16 judgement, adding there would no extension of time given for the purpose.

Seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Centre for its "willful disobedience" in implementing the judgment, sought direction to the to constitute the board and the committee with all powers to enforce the Tribunal award and the judgment of the court as well.

in its contempt plea contended that the was "bound to give effect to the judgment by framing a scheme so that the authorities under the Scheme are put in place within six weeks and the decision of the Tribunal as modified by this Hon'is implemented."

The was "duty bound to take steps to facilitating implementation of the judgment by itself deciding and taking necessary action to constitute the machinery" as per the mandate of the top court, it said.

"It has not taken any concrete steps in this regard", the contempt plea said.

"Belatedly" on March 9 after a period of three weeks, the "merely" convened a meeting of the Chief Secretaries of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Puducherry.

The convening of "such a meeting does not in any way make any substantial progress in the matter of constitution of and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee", the state told the court.

Asserting that timely releases of water was clear from the February 16 judgment, said any delay "in constituting and is to the prejudice to the farmers of state of Tamil Nadu".

--IANS

pk-sar-vsc/

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

First Published: Sat, March 31 2018. 15:24 IST
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU