English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Tamil Nadu files contempt petition against Centre for not taking steps to resolve Cauvery dispute, Centre seeks time

Published

on

Tamil Nadu files contempt petition against Centre for not taking steps to resolve Cauvery dispute, Centre seeks time

The Tamil Nadu government on Saturday, March 31 filed a contempt petition against the Central government a day after the Supreme Court’s six-week deadline to put in place a mechanism to resolve Cauvery dispute ended.

The Supreme Court in its February 16 judgment in the Cauvery dispute had mandated the Central government to frame a scheme to set up a Cauvery Management Board (CMB) and a Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) to monitor  the allocation of the river water among Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry.

Tamil Nadu accused the Centre of refusing to act to “protect the interests of the farmers and the larger interests of the State” and urged the apex court to “purge the contempt forthwith” by directing the Centre to frame a scheme in accordance with the judgment by providing for CMB and CWRC vested with all powers to give effect to the decision of the Cauvery Tribunal as well as the judgment of SC.

As per the February 16 judgment in the Cauvery appeals, the Centre had to frame the scheme in six weeks. The deadline ended on March 29. On the eve of the deadline, the Centre moved the Supreme Court for a three-month extension for the implementation of the judgment, citing the model code of conduct due to Karnataka elections. As Karnataka is having Assembly elections on May 12, the Centre wants to deal with the sensitive Cauvery issue after the polls.

The Centre felt that constitution of a scheme under Section 6(A) of the Inter-state River Waters Disputes Act and notification during the assembly election process would lead to massive public outrage, vitiate election process and cause serious law and order problems.

The Centre also sought a clarification on constitution of Cauvery Management Board from the top court asking whether it is open to the Central government to frame the scheme under 6(A) at variance with the recommendations contained in the report of the Cauvery water dispute tribunal regarding Cauvery Management Board.

It also wanted to know whether, if the board as recommended by the tribunal is to be constituted, would the Central government have the flexibility to modify the composition of the board to a mixture of administrative and technical body and not purely a technical body for effect conduct of the business of the board and considering overall sensitivity of the issues involved.

It also wanted a clarification whether the board framed under 6(A) of the act can have functions different from the ones recommended for Cauvery Management Board by the tribunal.

The Centre said in compliance of the February 6 order of the court and in spirit of true federalism, it convened a meeting of the Chief Secretaries of the four states and other officials and initiated consultations for arriving at a consensus. Divergent views were expressed by the states, said the Centre.

Tamil Nadu indicated that the scheme as mentioned by the Supreme Court has been defined in Section 6 which is to implement the final order of the tribunal under the court. The view of Tamil Nadu was that the Central government was mandated to put in place an authority or the body for implementation of the final decision by constituting the board and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee.

Puducherry and Kerala gave similar views but Karnataka was of the opinion that the Supreme Court has left the contents of the scheme to the discretion of the Central government.

It said the contention of Tamil Nadu that the board as formulated by the tribunal should be a part of the Scheme is wholly contrary to the mandate of the judgment and law.

Karnataka also contended that the Scheme contemplated in the Supreme Court judgment is a dispute resolution body as distinct from the management or regulation recommended by the tribunal. Therefore the question of asking Karnataka submit indent does not and should not arise for consideration.

Karnataka said the management and regulation of water of a state namely equitable share of a state determined by the adjudication is the sole prerogative of the state by reference to the entry 17 of the State list to the seventh schedule of the Constitution and therefore a scheme in the form of the board is clearly ultra vires of the Constitution.

Fifthly, Karnataka contended that the Supreme Court has not endorsed or approved the board in its judgment.

On the other hand, Tamil Nadu, which filed the contempt petition through advocate G. Umapathy as soon as the Supreme Court Registry opened on Saturday, reminded that the apex court has clearly, in its February 16 verdict, banned any extension of time to the Centre for framing a scheme.

“Central Government was bound to give effect to the judgment by framing a scheme so that the authorities under the scheme viz. Cauvery management board and Cauvery water regulation committee are put in place within six weeks… It has not taken any concrete steps in this regard,” Tamil Nadu contended.

It pointed that belatedly, after a period of three weeks, the Central government merely convened a meeting of the Chief Secretaries of the party States on 09.03.2018. “The convening of such a meeting does not in any way make any substantial progress in the matter of constitution of a Cauvery management board and Cauvery water regulation committee,” said Tamil Nadu.

Tamil Nadu said it had written to the Centre repeatedly on March 13, March 21 and March 23 for the constitution of a Cauvery management board within the six-week time limit so that farmers do not suffer during the irrigation season commencing from June 1.

“Ensuring timely release of water is apparent in the judgment itself and, therefore, any delay in constituting a Cauvery management board and a Cauvery water regulation committee is to the prejudice to the farmers of State of Tamil Nadu… In the absence of any cogent reasons for not constituting a Cauvery management board and a Cauvery water regulation committee within the time frame and/ or not making any substantial steps in that directions amount to wilful disobedience of the judgment of the Supreme Court,” Tamil Nadu said.

India News

Parliament Winter Session to be held from November 25 to December 20

Kiren Rijiju, Parliamentary Affairs Minister affirmed that the government’s proposal to convene both Houses of the Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) during this period was sanctioned by President Droupadi Murmu.

Published

on

Parliament Winter Session to be held from November 25 to December 20

The Parliament Winter Session will commence from November 25 and will conclude on December 20. The winter session will take place two days after the announcement of Maharashtra and Jharkhand Assembly election results.

Kiren Rijiju, Parliamentary Affairs Minister affirmed that the government’s proposal to convene both Houses of the Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) during this period was sanctioned by President Droupadi Murmu.

Notably, the upcoming Winter Session will be the observance of Constitution Day on November 26, commemorating the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Indian Constitution. Reportedly, the event will be celebrated in the Central Hall of Samvidhan Sadan in New Delhi, with members of both Houses gathering to honour the country’s foundational document.

Taking to X, Kiren Rijiju said that the President, on the recommendation of Government of India, has approved the proposal for summoning of both the Houses of Parliament for the Winter Session, 2024 from 25th November to 20th December, 2024 (subject to exigencies of parliamentary business). The Union Minister added that on 26th November, 2024 (Constitution Day), 75th Anniversary of the adoption of Constitution, the event would be celebrated in the Central Hall of Samvidhan Sadan.

In this session, raging discussions are expected to be held around two key legislative proposals: The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 and One Nation, One Election.

Previously, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had stressed on the importance of the Waqf (Amendment Bill), asserting that it would be addressed in the winter session. Addressing an election rally in Gurugram, the Home Minister said that they will resolve The Waqf Board law in the next session of the Parliament.

At present, a Joint Parliamentary Committee(JPC) is holding marathon meetings across various states to engage with stakeholders and address their concerns and build a consensus on the contentious bill.

Reportedly, the Centre might also look to introduce One Nation One Election Bill which will ensure simultaneous polls for Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his Unity Day speech in Gujarat, said that the One Nation, One Election proposal, which aims to synchronise all elections in the country either on a single day or within a specific time frame, will be cleared soon and will become a reality.

The Prime Minister said that they are now working towards One Nation One Election, which will strengthen India’s democracy, give the optimum outcome of India’s resources and the country will gain new momentum in achieving the dream of a developed India.

Continue Reading

India News

Kerala High Court quashes charges against director Sreekumar Menon in complaint filed by actor Manju Warrier

The court also noted a significant delay in the actor’s report of the alleged incident involving obscene language.

Published

on

Kerala High Court quashes charges against film director Sreekumar Menon in complaint filed by actor Manju Warrier

In a significant development, the Kerala High Court has quashed all charges against film director Sreekumar Menon in a case filed by renowned South Indian actress Manju Warrier. The criminal case lodged in 2019, alleged stalking and harassment by Sreekumar Menon against Manju Warrier.

Justice S. Manu, who presided over the case, found insufficient evidence to support the charges pressed against the film director. The charges included stalking under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), using obscene language under Section 294(b) of the IPC, and criminal intimidation under Section 509 of the IPC.

The Kerala High Court also noted a significant delay in the actor’s report of the alleged incident involving obscene language. The complaint, which was filed in 2019, mentioned an altercation that supposedly occurred in Dubai in December 2018. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that Section 188 of the CrPC mandates seeking Central Government permission for prosecuting offenses committed outside India.

The final report also included a charge under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. However, the High Court observed that this offense is non-cognizable, meaning the police cannot initiate a case without specific permission. Since the other charges were deemed unsustainable, the Kerala High Court ruled that prosecution solely under this section would not hold validity.

The case stemmed from a petition filed by Manju Warrier with the Kerala State Police Chief in 2019. The petition alleged stalking and harassment by Sreekumar Menon. Subsequently, the petition led to the registration of an FIR at the Thrissur East Police Station. 

Both film director Sreekumar Warrier and actor Manju Menon have enjoyed successful careers in the Malayalam film industry. Their collaboration on the film Odiyan, starring Mohanlal, marked Sreekumar Menon’s directorial debut. 

Continue Reading

India News

Will not contest any election in future, have to stop somewhere: Sharad Pawar hints at retirement

The NCP leader said that he is not in power, and his tenure in the Rajya Sabha has one-and-a-half years left.

Published

on

Will not contest any election in future, have to stop somewhere: Sharad Pawar hints at retirement

Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) senior leader Sharad Pawar, 83, today hinted at retirement as he said he may not contest any more elections after his Rajya Sabha term ends in 18 months.

Sharad Pawar who formed the NCP in 1999 is widely regarded as the grand old man of Maharashtra politics. The veteran politician was speaking at his family stronghold of Baramati in western Maharashtra, which will see a Pawar vs Pawar contest in the November 20 Assembly election.

Addressing a rally, the NCP leader said that he is not in power, and his tenure in the Rajya Sabha has one-and-a-half years left. He continued that he will not contest any election in future, and that he will have to stop somewhere. He also thanked the voters of Baramati for making him an MP and MLA a staggering 14 times overall. Notably, a potential close of a nearly six-decade-long political career comes as the NCP and its allies – the Congress and the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena group – contest this month’s election.

In this election, the fight for Baramati is being seen as a referendum on Sharad Pawar’s continuing influence over voters, since it sees his grandnephew, Yugendra Pawar, do battle against his nephew Ajit Pawar, whose led the rebellion last year that forced the NCP to split.

NCP leader Ajit Pawar is a five-time MLA from Baramati but, in each of his earlier wins, he had the backing of his uncle’s party. This will be the first assembly election in which he contests under his own banner.

The result of the election for the Baramati Lok Sabha seat, where the people voted overwhelmingly for Sharad Pawar’s candidate, his daughter Supriya Sule, underlines Ajit Pawar’s task at hand.

Speaking at Baramati, Sharad Pawar said that he holds no grudge against Ajit Pawar, adding that he led the people there for 30 years. However, he also said that it is time for him to prepare a young and dynamic leadership, which can take over for the next 30 years, apparently referring to Yugendra Pawar’s future position.

The veteran politician continued that he is not seeking votes, acknowledging that voters have always been magnanimous with all Pawar family members. He added that however, now they have to look ahead at the future.  

Notably, Sharad Pawar’s retirement from electoral politics has been circulating for some time now, and was raked up again in January by nephew Ajit Pawar, who had fought against and forced a split of his uncle’s party, leading the rebels into an alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party and a faction of the Shiv Sena that had earlier broken away from Uddhav Thackeray.

At that time, Ajit Pawar hit out at Sharad Pawar for not sticking to a 2023 resolution to step down from the party’s top post. He said that some people simply refuse to retire. He continued that people should stop after reaching a certain age, but some are not ready, even after turning 80. Referring to his uncle, Ajit Pawar said that this person is not ready to retire.

Responding to this jab, Sharad Pawar said that he is neither tired nor retired, echoing late former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s remarks. He questioned who they were to tell him to retire, adding that he can still work.

Last year in May, while the NCP was battling its internal crisis, Sharad Pawar announced his resignation as party boss. However, the announcement was unanimously rejected by top leaders. A few days later, he withdrew his resignation.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com