English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

SC reduces Cauvery water allocation to Tamil Nadu, Karnataka to get more because Bengaluru needs it

Published

on

SC reduces Cauvery water allocation to Tamil Nadu, Karnataka to get more because Bengaluru needs it

Court says agreements were not “political arrangements” but were based on public interest; decision valid for 15 years

The Supreme Court on Friday (February 16) ended the long-pending Cauvery river water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu by clearly demarcating the allocation of Cauvery water among Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala.

The bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava Roy, A M Khanwilkar reduced the allocation of water for Tamil Nadu by 14.75 trillion cusecs (tmcft). Tamil Nadu will now get 404.25 tmcft of Cauvery water instead of 419 tmcft allotted by 207 tribunal.

Karnataka will get an enhanced 14.75 tmcft of water which will now stand at 284.75 tmcft (including 4.75 tmcft for Bengaluru) as against the 2007 Cauvery River Water Disputes Tribunal award of 270 tmcft.  The court’s logic on this was that the state needs more for its industrial use and for the use of the cosmopolitan city of Bengaluru.

However, the bench kept allocation of waters to Kerala i.e. 30 tmcft and to Puducherry i.e. 7 tmcft unchanged as per the 2007 tribunal award.

The bench directed that Karnataka will release 177.25 tmcft of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu from its inter-state Biligundlu dam while justifying its decision for increased water allocation to Karnataka on account of drinking water requirement and groundwater for Bengaluru residents. The order on Cauvery water allocation will continue for next 15 years, the bench said.

The bench also allowed Tamil Nadu to draw an additional 10 tmcft of groundwater, from a total of 20 tmcft beneath the Cauvery basin.

Upholding the validity of 1892 and 1924 agreements on Cauvery river water allocation, the bench noted that these agreements were not “political arrangements” but were based on public interest. The bench observed: “The 1924 post-Mettur dam agreement expired in 1974. Now the principle of water allocation is based on “equitable apportionment” and not primacy.”

Adjudging inter-state rivers are national assets, the bench stated: “The Constitution gave equal status to all States. No one riparian State can claim full rights over it.”

During the hearing, the bench rejected the Centre’s argument that it was Parliament’s prerogative to finalise the water sharing scheme.

Welcoming the verdict, the Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah said: “This is good news for farmers in Cauvery basin and people of Karnataka.” Tamil Nadu’s AIADMK was careful in commenting on the decrease of allocation and said that it had to study the court’s order deeply before commenting.

Backgrounder

  • The dispute dates back to 1892 when an agreement was filed between the Madras Presidency and Mysore for arbitration but led to a fresh set of disputes. Later, attempts were renewed to arbitrate between the two states under the supervision of the Government of India and a second agreement was signed in 1924.
  • As Kerala and Puducherry also laid claim to a share of the Cauvery water after Independence, a Fact Finding Committee was set up in 1970 to resolve the situation on the ground. The committee submitted its report in 1972 and further studies were conducted by an expert committee. The states reached an agreement in 1976. However, after a new government came to power in Tamil Nadu, it refused to give its consent to the terms of the agreement.
  • Later, in 1986, the Tamil Nadu government appealed to the central government to constitute a tribunal for solving the issue under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. However, the tribunal was not set up until the Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter and ordered the central government to do so in 1990.
  • The Cauvery Waters Tribunal was constituted on June 2, 1990. After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced its final order in 2007, allocating 419 tmc ft of water to Tamil Nadu and 270 tmc ft to Karnataka. Kerala was given 30 tmc ft and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. The Tribunal had come to a conclusion that the total availability of water in the Cauvery basin stood at 740 tmc ft. However, both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka filed a review petition before the Tribunal.
  • In 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, as chairman of the Cauvery River Authority, directed the Karnataka government to release 9,000 cusecs of water daily. The Supreme Court slammed the state government as it failed to comply with the order. The government offered an unconditional apology and started the release of water, leading to widespread violent protests.
  • With the Karnataka government continuously failing to release the water to Tamil Nadu, Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa filed an interlocutory petition in the Supreme Court in August 2016, seeking release of water as per the guidelines of the Tribunal. Announcing its verdict in the case, the Supreme Court, on September 5, directed the Karnataka government to release 15,000 cusecs of water to its neighboring state for 10 days.
  • The Supreme Court modified its order and asked Karnataka to release 12,000 cusecs of water every day until September 20, 2016.
  • On September 20, 2017 while reserving its order  Cauvery river water-sharing dispute directed Centre to frame a scheme for the implementation of its orders on river water-sharing between these states and Puducherry after the judgement is pronounced.

India News

PM Modi assures no discrimination in women’s quota, delimitation debate intensifies in Parliament

PM Narendra Modi has assured that women’s reservation will be implemented without discrimination, amid a heated debate over delimitation in Parliament.

Published

on

PM modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has assured that there will be no discrimination in the implementation of women’s reservation, as Parliament witnessed a sharp debate over the proposed linkage between the quota and delimitation exercise.

During the ongoing special session, the government reiterated its commitment to ensuring fair representation while addressing concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the timing and structure of the legislation.

The proposed framework aims to reserve 33 percent of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. However, its implementation is tied to a fresh delimitation exercise, which is expected after the next census.

Opposition questions timing and intent

Opposition leaders have raised concerns that linking the women’s quota to delimitation could delay its implementation. They argue that the process of redrawing constituencies may push the actual rollout further into the future.

The issue has triggered a broader political confrontation, with multiple parties questioning whether the move could alter representation across states.

Some critics have also alleged that the delimitation exercise could disproportionately benefit certain regions based on population, a charge the government has rejected.

Government reiterates commitment to fair implementation

Responding to these concerns, the Centre has maintained that the reforms are necessary to ensure accurate and updated representation based on population data.

Leaders from the ruling side have repeatedly emphasized that the process will be carried out transparently and without bias. The assurance that there will be “no discrimination” is aimed at addressing fears among states and opposition parties.

The debate marks a key moment in Parliament, with both sides engaging in intense exchanges over one of the most significant electoral reforms in recent years.

Continue Reading

India News

Give all tickets to Muslim women, Amit Shah says, attacking Akhilesh Yadav on sub-quota demand

A sharp exchange between Amit Shah and Akhilesh Yadav in Parliament over sub-quota for Muslim women highlights key divisions on women’s reservation implementation.

Published

on

A heated exchange broke out in Parliament during discussions on the women’s reservation framework, with Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav locking horns over the demand for a sub-quota for Muslim women.

The debate unfolded as the government pushed forward key legislative measures to implement 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

Akhilesh Yadav argued that the proposed reservation must ensure representation for women from marginalised communities, including Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Muslim women. He said that without such provisions, large sections could remain excluded from political participation.

He also questioned the timing of the bill, alleging that the Centre was avoiding a caste census. According to him, a census would lead to renewed demands for caste-based reservations, which the government is reluctant to address.

Government rejects religion-based quota

Responding to the demand, Amit Shah made it clear that reservation based on religion is not permitted under the Constitution.

He stated that any proposal to provide quota to Muslims on religious grounds would be unconstitutional, firmly rejecting the idea of a separate sub-quota for Muslim women within the broader reservation framework.

The government has maintained that the existing framework already includes provisions for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) women within the overall reservation structure.

Wider political divide over implementation

The issue of sub-categorisation within the women’s quota has emerged as a major flashpoint, even as most opposition parties broadly support the idea of women’s reservation.

Samajwadi Party leaders reiterated that their support for the bill depends on inclusion of OBC and minority women, while the government continues to defend its constitutional position.

The debate is part of a broader discussion during the special Parliament session, where multiple bills linked to delimitation and implementation of the women’s quota are being taken up.

Continue Reading

India News

No state will lose a seat, Centre assures as delimitation debate takes centre stage in Parliament

Parliament’s special session begins with key focus on implementing women’s reservation and delimitation, setting the stage for major electoral changes.

Published

on

Parliament

A special session of Parliament commenced on Thursday, with the Centre set to take up crucial legislation related to women’s reservation and delimitation of constituencies. The session, scheduled over three days, is expected to witness intense debate as the government pushes forward its legislative agenda.

At the centre of discussions is the proposal to operationalise the women’s reservation law, which seeks to allocate 33 percent of seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies to women. The law, passed earlier, requires enabling provisions before it can be implemented.

The rollout of the reservation is closely tied to the delimitation exercise — a process that redraws parliamentary constituencies based on updated population data. The implementation is expected only after the next census and delimitation process are completed.

The government is aiming to put in place the framework so that the reservation can be enforced in future elections, likely around 2029.

Delimitation and numbers at play

Delimitation is a key aspect of the proposed changes, as it will determine how seats are redistributed and which constituencies are reserved. The exercise is expected to reflect population shifts and may also involve an increase in the total number of Lok Sabha seats.

This linkage has made the issue politically sensitive, with several opposition parties backing women’s reservation in principle but raising concerns over how and when delimitation will be carried out.

Political reactions and expected debate

The session is likely to see sharp exchanges between the government and opposition. While there is broad agreement on increasing women’s representation, disagreements remain over the timing, process, and potential political implications of the delimitation exercise.

Some leaders have argued that delimitation could significantly alter the balance of representation among states, making it a contentious issue beyond the women’s quota itself.

The government, however, has framed the move as a step toward strengthening women’s participation in governance and ensuring more inclusive policymaking.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com