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

Supreme Court flags risk of lawlessness, pauses FIRs against ED officers in Bengal case

The Supreme Court paused FIRs against ED officers in the Bengal I-PAC raid case, warning that obstruction of central probes could lead to lawlessness and seeking responses from the Centre and state.

Published

on

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a sharp rebuke to the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government, pausing FIRs lodged against officers of the Enforcement Directorate over searches linked to political consultancy I-PAC. The court said the case raises serious questions about interference in investigations and warned that failure to address them could lead to “lawlessness”.

A bench of Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi sought replies from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Department of Personnel and Training, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress government on the ED’s plea. The central agency has also sought the suspension of Bengal Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar and Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma, and a probe by the CBI. The matter will be heard next on February 3.

The ruling follows a standoff between the ED and the Bengal government after the agency conducted searches at premises linked to I-PAC, which manages election campaigns for the Trinamool Congress, in connection with a corruption case.

Court questions obstruction of central probes

Recording its prima facie view, the Supreme Court said the petition raised a “serious issue” concerning investigations by central agencies and possible obstruction by state authorities.

“There are larger questions which emerge and if not answered shall lead to lawlessness. If central agencies are working bona fide to probe a serious offence, a question arises: Can they be obstructed by party activities?” the bench observed.

Earlier in the day, the court also expressed disturbance over scenes of chaos in the Calcutta High Court during a hearing related to the same dispute.

ED alleges interference, seeks action against top cops

The Enforcement Directorate accused the West Bengal administration of interfering with its searches and investigation. Appearing for the agency, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta alleged that evidence was removed from the residence of an I-PAC co-founder and argued that such actions could encourage state police officers to aid and abet obstruction. He sought suspension of senior police officials.

Describing the disruption in the Calcutta High Court on January 9, Mehta called it “mobocracy”, saying a group of lawyers unconnected to the case disrupted proceedings, forcing an adjournment. The bench asked whether the high court had been turned into a protest site, to which Mehta responded that messages had circulated calling lawyers to gather at a specific time.

Banerjee’s counsel defends move, cites election confidentiality

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mamata Banerjee, questioned the timing of the ED’s presence in Bengal ahead of Assembly elections. He said the last development in the coal scam case dated back to February 2024 and argued that I-PAC handled election-related work under a formal contract with the Trinamool Congress.

According to Sibal, election data stored at the premises was confidential and critical to campaign strategy. He said the party leadership had a right to protect such information.

Representing the Bengal government and the DGP, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi referred to the January 9 disruption but argued it could not justify parallel proceedings in different courts. The bench responded that emotions “cannot go out of hand repeatedly”.

Continue Reading

India News

Shashi Tharoor warns US tariffs on Iran could make Indian exports unviable

Shashi Tharoor has warned that cumulative US tariffs linked to Iran trade could rise to 75%, making most Indian exports to America commercially unviable.

Published

on

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP and chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Shashi Tharoor has expressed serious concern over the United States’ latest tariff announcement targeting countries that continue to trade with Iran, warning that such measures could severely impact Indian exporters.

Reacting to the decision by US President Donald Trump to impose a 25% tariff on countries doing business with Iran, Tharoor said Indian companies would struggle to remain competitive if cumulative tariffs rise to 75%. He noted that India was already at a disadvantage compared to several regional competitors.

Tharoor said he had been troubled by the US tariff regime from the outset, pointing out that India was initially subjected to a 25% tariff while rival exporting nations in Southeast Asia were charged significantly lower rates. According to him, countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh faced tariffs ranging between 15% and 19% on labour-intensive goods exported to the US.

He explained that the situation had worsened with additional sanctions-linked duties. With the existing 25% tariff, another 25% related to Russia-linked sanctions, and a further 25% tied to Iran-related measures, the total burden could rise to 75%. At that level, Tharoor said, most Indian exports would no longer be commercially viable in the American market.

While noting that certain sectors such as pharmaceuticals may continue to export as they are not heavily impacted by sanctions, he warned that other key export categories would be hit hard. Tharoor described the situation as very serious and said it required urgent attention.

The Congress MP also expressed hope that the newly appointed US Ambassador could help facilitate progress on a bilateral trade agreement. He stressed that India could not afford to wait through the entire year for a deal and said an agreement should ideally be concluded in the first quarter of 2026.

Commenting on recent diplomatic engagements between India and the US, Tharoor underlined the need for faster consensus on trade issues. He said that at tariff levels as high as 75%, the idea of a meaningful trade deal loses relevance. According to him, a rate closer to what the UK enjoys with the US, around 15%, would reflect the respect due to a strategic partner.

Tharoor’s remarks come after President Trump announced that any country continuing business with Iran would face a 25% tariff on all trade with the United States, a move that has raised concerns among several trading partners.

Continue Reading

India News

Indian Army symbolizes selfless service and duty, says PM Modi on Army Day

PM Narendra Modi on Army Day praised the Indian Army as a symbol of selfless service and unwavering duty, saluting the courage and sacrifice of its soldiers.

Published

on

pm modi speech

On the occasion of Army Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday paid tribute to the Indian Army, describing its soldiers as a symbol of selfless service who protect the nation with unwavering resolve, even in the most challenging circumstances.

In a message shared on social media platform X, the prime minister said the country salutes the courage and steadfast commitment of Indian Army personnel. He noted that their dedication to duty inspires confidence and gratitude among citizens across the country.

“Our soldiers stand as a symbol of selfless service, safeguarding the nation with steadfast resolve, at times under the most challenging conditions,” PM Modi said. He added that the nation remembers with deep respect those who have laid down their lives while serving the country.

Army Day is observed every year on January 15 to commemorate a historic moment in India’s military history. The day marks the appointment of Field Marshal K M Cariappa as the first Indian Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army in 1949, when he took over from British officer General Sir F R R Bucher.

The occasion serves as a reminder of the Indian Army’s role in defending the country’s sovereignty and honour, as well as the sacrifices made by its personnel in the line of duty.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com