New Delhi: With the six weeks time limit coming to an end on Wednesday for setting up of the Cauvery Management Board (CMB), the Centre has decided to move the Supreme Court seeking clarification on its February 16 judgement on the Cauvery dispute.
Highly placed sources said the Centre’s decision is sequel to rival claims being made by Tamil Nadu for setting up of the CMB and Karnataka strongly opposing any such move and suggesting an alternative mechanism in place of the CMB.
The AIADMK MPs have been stalling both houses of Parliament to press for their demand to set up the CMB within six weeks in terms of the February 16 verdict.
With the Election Commission announcing the May 12 as the date for Karnataka assembly elections, the Centre with a view to delaying the process of setting up of the CMB will file the application in a couple of days putting forth the view points of both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
The Centre wants the apex court to clarify as to what is the meaning of “framing a scheme” under Section 6(A) of the Inter State Water Disputes Act as there is no specific mention about “CMB” in the judgement 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 judgement 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.
On the other hand the Congress government in Karnataka has urged the Centre to ignore the CMB and instead proposed a two-layer “scheme” for the implementation of the Supreme Court verdict. The proposed scheme comprises a six-member Cauvery Decision Implementation Committee (CDIC) headed by the Union Water Resources Minister, water resources ministers of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry.
The 11-member monitoring agency under it, will be headed by the Union Water Resources Secretary and will comprise the chief secretaries of the four riparian states, Chairman of the Central Water Commission, chief engineer of the CWC, and one officer each not below the rank of a chief engineer to represent the four states.
Caught between the rival demands, the Centre has decided to seek clarification from the Supreme Court on the scope of Section 6(A) of ISWD Act.
