Why in news?
- Tamil Nadu government has filed a contempt petition seeking action against the Centre for not setting up the Cauvery Management Board (CMB).
How did the dispute evolve?
- The dispute over Cauvery water sharing started as Tamil Nadu’s share of water got reduced due to the multiple dams that Karnataka built across the river.
- A case was filed and “Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal” (CWDT) was constituted, which pronounced its verdict in 2007.
- The 2007 verdict specified the quantum of water for each state and mandated the creation of a “Cauvery Management Board” (CMB).
- The CMB was envisioned on the lines of “Bhakra-Beas Management Board” (BBMB), based on “Inter-State River Water Disputes Act”, 1956.
- The board was supposed to have representatives of all the concerned governments (including the union government).
- The water release was to be overseen by a commission constituted by the board.
- But the case went up for further appeal in the SC.
What is the recent SC judgement?
- The SC ruled, in Feb 2018, by reducing the allocation of water for Tamil Nadu.
- It also called for a “Water Management Scheme” for dividing water between the concerned states - Karnataka, TN, Kerala and Puducherry.
- The deadline for constituting such a scheme was fixed by the SC as March 29th.
- But the Centre did not constitute the CMB within this deadline.
- It has instead asked for a 3 months extension.
- Meanwhile, TN government has filed a contempt petition against the center for non-compliance with the court orders.
- Widespread protests have erupted in Tamil Nadu.
What is the Centre’s argument?
- TN government had perceived the “management scheme” in the recent judgement refered to the CMB as mentioned in the 2007 Tribunal order.
- But the center has sought clarification from the SC on what exactly “water management scheme” meant, as there are multiple options possible.
- Center has stated that even existing boards such as Bhakra-Beas Management Board (BBMB) and the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) are not similar.
- Notably, BBMB, has control over operation, maintenance, regulation and control including ownership of the structure.
- But NCA only looks after the implementation of the Tribunal award with respect to the storage, apportionment, regulation and control of waters.
- Hence, the ownership, operation and maintenance of structures across Narmada lie with the respective states (MP, Maharastra, Gujarat and Rajasthan).
- As there is a divergence in views among the states concerned in the “Cauvery case”, the center has expressed its inability to proceed unilaterally.
- Notably, the CJI had indicated currently that the court is open to a management scheme that is in variance with the CMB as envisoned in 2007 tribunal order.
What are the views of other stakeholders?
- Karnataka - According to the state, the apex court has left the contents of the management scheme open to the discretion of the Centre.
- It has maintained that Tamil Nadu’s contention that CMB should be constituted was against the autonomy of the state over rivers.
- Kerala - Kerala has suggested that the CMB should be headed by the Union Secretary of water resources and have 4 additonal secretaries.
- It has also stated that the board should only ensure that the states do not overshoot the quantity of water allocated to them.
- Additionally, Kerala has also petitioned the court to give it complete autonomy to use the 30 TMC ft of water allocated to it according to its own needs.
- Puducherry - The Union Territory has been allocated 7 TMC ft of water for its Karaikal enclave, which falls in the Tamil Nadu delta region.
- While the Puducherry government wanted to file a contempt plea against the Centre, it was turned down by the Lt. Governor on technical grounds.
Source: Indian Express
