Top

SC poser: Why was Cauvery Mgmt Board not formed?

The SG submitted that the Centre did not frame a scheme as it was waiting for clarifications from the Tribunal on various issues.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Centre on why it did not take steps to frame a scheme for formation of Cauvery Management Board for implementation of the award of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.

A three-judge Bench of Chief Justices Dipak Misra and Justices Amitav Roy and D.Y. Chandrachud are hearing appeals against the Cauvery Disputes Tribunal's final award of February 2007 on allocation of water for Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala and Puducherry.

Even as Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar for the Centre commenced his arguments, the CJI told the SG "having notified the final award in the Gazette in May 2013, why you (Centre) did not frame a scheme for implementation of the award. It is your obligation to frame a scheme and you cannot shirk your responsibility saying the relevant provision only says "may frame a scheme.'

The SG submitted that the Centre did not frame a scheme as it was waiting for clarifications from the Tribunal on various issues. Further as the matter was pending adjudication in the apex court, the Centre wanted to await the judgment. Moreover as per the interim orders of the apex court, Cauvery River Authority and Supervisory Committee had been formed and they are still in existence.

The CJI however, told the SG "once the award is notified, there cannot be a vaccum, it has to be effectively implemented for which a proper mechanism is necessary." The SG assured the court that the mechanism would be put in place within six weeks as per the directions contained in the final judgment.

Mr. Ranjit Kumar informed the court that framing a scheme was a legislative function. Once the scheme was framed, it has to be placed before Parliament for its approval, annulment or modification.

Senior counsel Fali Nariman for Karnataka intervened and said the final award provided for distress sharing formula but there was no apportionment of water when there was surplus water in a year. He also opposed monthly release of water to Tamil Nadu and maintained that the deficit had to be determined only at the end of the crop season or at the end of the water year.

Senior counsel Shekar Naphade for Tamil Nadu made it clear that there could not be any tinkering with the tribunal's award on monthly release of water.

( Source : Deccan Chronicle. )
Next Story