New Delhi: The Centre is filing an application in the Supreme Court on Saturday seeking a clarification on the setting up of the Cauvery Management Board in terms of the February 16 judgment on the Cauvery dispute, informed sources here say.
They said the draft application was sent to the Union Law Ministry on Wednesday morning. As the Ministry made some changes in the draft, it could not be filed the same day. The application has been finalised and will be filed on Saturday, since Thursday (Mahavir Jayanti) and Good Friday are holidays for the apex court Registry.
The Tamil Nadu government is also likely to move the apex court with a contempt petition alleging that the Centre had deliberately and willfully disobeyed the judgment which categorically stated that the Centre should frame a ‘scheme' under Section 6A of the Inter State Water Disputes Act, which literally meant the setting up of the CMB.
With two conflicting petitions coming up before the court, a piquant situation has arisen as to the scope of contempt in implementing the order. Legal experts point out that this is not the first time the Centre is seeking clarification before implementing the order. Both when 123 telecom licences were cancelled in the ‘2G case' and coal licences were cancelled, clarifications were sought by the Union government. Therefore the question of contempt will not arise as there is no deliberate attempt to disobey the order.
However, the Tamil Nadu legal team is convinced that the clarification application is a ploy to delay the CMB and there is contempt. When the case was being heard in September/October 2016, the apex court directed the Centre to set up the CMB in three days. The then Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi correctly understood the Tribunal’s order and agreed to set up the CMB in terms of the 2007 award. It was spoiled by Karnataka which refused to name its representative for the CMB forcing the Centre to change its stand and urge the court to wait for the final verdict.
The Centre’s decision to seek a clarification at the end of the six-week time limit follows rival claims being made by Tamil Nadu for setting up of the CMB and Karnataka strongly opposing any such move. Karnataka has suggested setting up of a Cauvery monitoring committee so that the control and regulation of reservoirs would continue to remain with the State and not with the Board.
The Centre wants the apex court to clarify as to what is the meaning of “framing a scheme” under Section 6A of the Inter State Water Disputes Act as there is no specific mention about “CMB” in the judgment though in the narration the verdict talks about CMB as suggested by the Tribunal in its final award of February 2007. It is the stand of Tamil Nadu that the judgment is very clear on setting up of CMB as the apex court had upheld the Tribunal's award in its entirety except a slight modification by increasing the allocation to Bengaluru for drinking water.
The Tribunal has clearly mandated setting up of CMB by specifying its role, functions and the members to be put in place.
