Friday, Apr 19, 2024 | Last Update : 05:01 PM IST
Cauvery issue: Supreme Court fiat to Karnataka to release water
Despite the resolution passed by the Karnataka Legislative Assembly that no water will be released as it is required for drinking water purposes, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Karnataka to rel
Despite the resolution passed by the Karnataka Legislative Assembly that no water will be released as it is required for drinking water purposes, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Karnataka to release 6,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu for three days from Wednesday and said this will be adjusted in future orders.
A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Uday Lalit brushed aside the arguments of senior counsel Fali Nariman for Karnataka that the Executive is in the horns of a dilemma as a resolution has been passed by the Assembly not to release water which is meant only for drinking water requirements.
The bench also accepted the suggestion of attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi that the Centre can facilitate a meeting of the chief ministers of two states to resolve the issue if the two states agreed for such talks.
The bench asked the Centre to convene a meeting of the two CMs in the next two days and report the outcome to the court on Friday.
Hearing two applications by Karnataka, seeking modification of the September 20 order directing release of 6,000 cusecs of water till September 27 and by Tamil Nadu not to hear Karnataka till it complied with the orders, the bench said for the time being, “We are not inclined to pass any orders.”
The bench recalled an earlier instance when states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh came together and agreed to supply 5 tmcft of water to Chennai for its drinking water requirements and said, “This is the concept of true federalism.” Senior counsel Harish Salve intervened and said “such gesture requires political will and statesmanship.”
The bench in its order said “it asked the A-G what could be the possible solution in such a situation not because this court cannot adjudicate or pass appropriate orders in accordance with law to maintain and sustain the rule of law and majesty of law which are elan vital of our constitutional law, but prior to that we have thought it appropriate that there has to be discussion regard being had to the conceptual federalism prevalent in our democratic body polity”
