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.
