BENGALURU: The Supreme Court order on Tuesday directing the state to release 6,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day for the next three days caused enough ripples over the possible consequences for the state government if it decides to stick to its unanimous decision of not releasing water except for drinking purposes.
Legal luminaries felt that the tone and tenor of the SC order on Tuesday has further worsened the situation. The state has to either release water as per the direction or be ready to face action by the SC in the larger interest of its people, they said.
Brijesh Kalappa, legal advisor to the chief minister, told DC that Chief Minister Siddaramaiah will act after holding consultations with the ministers concerned, all political parties and the cabinet. “The positive takeaway from the order is that the SC has asked the Centre to intervene,” he said.
Former High Court Judge M.F. Saldanha said the Supreme Court order is “impossible” to comply with. “Has there been a careful evaluation of the situation with regard to the availability of water, how much water is left, whether it is sufficient for Karnataka, and, most of all, what are the consequences with regard to the people if water is released,” he said.
“I am a little sorry with the SC’s latest order. I may be right or wrong, but the SC’s view is very harsh. It is a delicate matter and one should look for solutions. The approach also matters a lot,” said Justice Saldanha. “If I were the CM, I would rather not comply with the SC order and face action and be even ready to sit inside the jail in the larger interest of the people,” he said.
Another former High Court Judge Ravi B. Naik said the SC has passed the direction to see if the state follows its order. “One cannot defy the court’s order and then seek relief. One has to approach the court with a clean hand. Hope sufficient rain helps the situation.”
Former Advocate General Ashok Harnahalli, however, felt that if the state chooses to release 6,000 cusecs of water, it will give a different impression both to the general public and the Supreme Court. It may be better to stick to the resolution.
“By sensing the tone and tenor of the SC order, if water is not released, then SC is likely to take further action. However, the state should capitalise on the positive aspect of mediation by the Centre, where it can present its case more effectively, stressing its paramount needs for drinking water against Tamil Nadu’s need for irrigation,” he said.
