Wilful disobedience of ruling by Centre: Tamil Nadu

New Delhi: Even as the Centre moved the apex court seeking clarification and extension of time by three months, the Tamil Nadu government filed a petition praying for initiation of contempt of court proceedings for deliberately and willfully failing to implement the directions of the February 16 judgment to set up the Cauvery Management Board in six weeks.

The application by the Tamil Nadu government wanted contempt of court proceedings against the Union Cabinet Secretary P.K. Sinha, and Water Resources Secretary, Shri U.P. Singh as they failed to give effect to the judgment within the stipulated period of six weeks.

TN said it was constrained to file the present Petition for protecting the interests of the farmers and the larger interests of the State, and for willful disobedience of the direction to frame a Scheme in six weeks to provide for the constitution of Cauvery Management Board (CMB) and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) to give effect to the judgment. The court had made it clear that no further extension could be granted for any reason.

TN stated that the State sent letters dated   13.03.2018, 21.03.2018 and 23.03.2018 to the Centre, inter-alia, requesting for the constitution of CMB and CWRC within the time limit stipulated by the court so that water is made available to the farmers of the State for the ensuing irrigation season of 2018 commencing from June 1.

TN pointed out that Centre has not taken any concrete steps in this regard. Belatedly, after a period of three weeks, the Centre merely convened a meeting of the Chief Secretaries of the Party States on 09.03.2018. The convening of such a meeting did not in any way make any substantial progress in the matter of constitution of Cauvery Management Board and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee.

It said ensuring timely release of water is apparent in the judgment itself and therefore, any delay in constituting CMB and CWRC is harmful to the TN farmers.

The State wanted the apex court direction to implement the Tribunal's decision is smoothly made functional and the rights of the States as determined by Tribunal are protected.

It is in these circumstances the Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking justice. The Petitioner State as parens patriae for the suffering farmers and its inhabitants has been pursuing the lawful and constitutional remedies and is seeking implementation of the Court directions and seeking to remedy the injury and suffering being caused by the inaction of the Union of India.

By not making any substantial steps in that direction amounted to willful disobedience of the judgment of the court, TN said and wanted to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the Cabinet Secretary and Water Resources Secretary. It wanted the Centre to be purged of contempt by giving a direction to the Centre to implement the directions by setting up the CMB.