Can Karnataka be hauled up for contempt of court by SC? Legal eagles are divided

Bengaluru: Now that the Karnataka legislature has unanimously passed a resolution not to release Cauvery water for any other purpose than to meet the requirements of Bengaluru and the towns and villages of the Cauvery basin, can it be hauled up for contempt of court?

Some legal experts give an ambiguous response saying the resolution itself cannot invite contempt, but the state government could if it decides to act on it and goes against the Supreme Court order on releasing 6,000 cusecs of water every day till September 27 to Tamil Nadu.

“It is the prerogative of the state Assembly to pass such a resolution. Neither the passing of it alone , nor any of those who backed it can be held in contempt. But if any further action is taken against the Supreme Court order on releasing water to Tamil Nadu then the state can be held in contempt,” said Justice Ravi. B. Naik, a former judge of the Karnataka High Court.

Mr K.V. Dhananjay, a Supreme Court advocate, believes the state legislature has not made a very good move by passing a resolution defying the court's orders.

“This resolution once again shows the Karnataka government hasn’t fully understood the legal issues involved in the Cauvery dispute. The Karnataka legislature has no authority to direct the state government or its officers to violate the order of the Supreme Court. I fail to understand how it will be of any help to the state, ” he said, also noting that the resolution had no legal validity.

“It does not protect the Chief Secretary or the Irrigation Secretary of Karnataka in any manner, but only confirms the worst fears of people in the rest of India that Karnataka does not play fair with Tamil Nadu on the Cauvery water dispute. It is unnecessary and damaging,” he maintained.

Both Houses of the state legislature at a special emergency session convened on Friday, approved the resolution deciding to release water only for drinking purposes.

United stand the Elders on Cauvery water release
For a change, the State Legislative Council did not witness the usual fireworks or allegations and counter allegations between ruling and opposition parties as they displayed unity on the issue of Cauvery-the lifeline of south Karnataka farmers, in the wake of Supreme Court directive to release 6,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu.

The opposition members spoke in one voice and extended their full support to whatever decision taken by the state government to save Cauvery water following poor storage in four dams owing to failure of the monsoon. Though, BJP had boycotted an all party meeting held on Wednesday to decide on the future course of action, on Friday they spoke in unison on the issue and urged the State government not to release a drop of water to TN come what may.

Leader of Opposition K.S. Eshwarappa, a strong critic of the Siddaramaiah government, surprised everyone by announcing his party’s support to any decision taken by the government to protect interest of farmers and citizens. "We are with you..Don't release a single drop of water to TN. Preserve whatever water available in Cauvery basin dams to supply drinking water to Bengaluru, Mysuru and other villages". Congress members did not question BJP members on the PM's silence on this issue despite the CM writing eight letters seeking his intervention.

Who will ensure 270 tmcft for Karnataka?
Sarvodaya Party member, K.S. Puttannaiah wondered who would ensure Karnataka got its share of 270 tmc ft of water from the Cauvery river, while Tamil Nadu continued to demand its share. Participating in the discussion on the resolution denying the neighbouring state any more Cauvery water, in the Legislative Assembly on Friday, Mr Puttannaiah said 462 tmc ft of water had to be available in the Cauvery basin for supply to both states. “Karnataka has released 16 tmc ft of water to Tamil Nadu, despite the people's anger against the government. This water would have been enough to meet Karnataka's needs for 80 days and saved its crops,'' he noted. Expressing his displeasure over the way the two states were handling the issue, he pointed out that their CMs had never discussed it.