CHENNAI: A day after the
Supreme Court's deadline asking the Centre to come up with a scheme to implement the final award of the Cauvery river water tribunal ended on Friday, the Union government filed a petition in the apex court seeking three-months time to implement the order.
Cauvery being an emotive issue, it could trigger unrest in Karnataka where the assembly polls are round the corner, the Centre said in its petition. It also sought clarifications from the court as to whether it could "frame the scheme" modifying the recommendations of the Cauvery tribunal.
Tamil Nadu government, meanwhile, initiated contempt proceedings against Union cabinet secretary
P K Sinha and water resources secretary U P Singh for wilful disobedience of the court order and demanded that the Cauvery management board and water regulation committee be set up soon.
The
Election Commission of India had announced the schedule for the assembly polls to Karnataka on March 27.
"Cauvery is a very emotive issue in Karnataka and in the past, the issue has led to serious law and order situations leading to avoidable loss of human lives and property. If the Centre were to constitute a scheme under section 6A of Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and notify it... it would lead to massive public outrage and vitiate election process, " the Centre said while detailing the efforts taken after the court verdict on February 16, such as convening a meeting of chief secretaries of the four basin states/Union Territory on March 9.
Centre: Our views on framing scheme differ from states’
Arguing that the states would again approach court if it framed any ‘scheme’, the Centre urged the court to clarify that in case CMB is to be constituted, whether it would have flexibility to modify the composition of the board to a combination of administrative and technical body, and not purely a technical body as recommended by the tribunal. It would help effective conduct of the business of the board, the Centre argued. Clarifications have also been sought as to whether the board could have functions different from the ones recommended for the CMB by the tribunal. The Centre pointed out that it had received divergent views from states on framing a scheme.
Both TN and Puducherry demanded that the Centre constitute CMB and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee as per the tribunal award. However, Karnataka claimed that the board should be part of the scheme. It also pointed out that the tribunal had only made recommendations. “The scheme contemplated in the judgment is constitution of a ‘dispute resolution body’ as distinct from the ‘management body’ recommended by the tribunal… The management and regulation of water is the sole prerogative of the state,” the petition said referring to the provisions in the State list in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. “The SC has not endorsed or approved CMB in its judgment… The scheme framed by Centre has to go through legislative process,” the petition added, quoting Karnataka’s stand. Kerala suggested that the CMB be one of administrators.
