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 judge calls police assault on CJP protesters very distressing

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan criticised alleged police assaults on CJP protesters and raised concerns over excessive force.

Published

on

Supreme Court

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has criticised the assault of protesters by police personnel during the recent CJP demonstrations in Delhi, describing the conduct as “very, very distressing” and a matter of serious concern.

Speaking at the launch of retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad’s book Policing the Republic, Justice Bhuyan said the detachment expected from police officers appeared to be diminishing.

He expressed concern over young Indian Police Service officers personally participating in the assault of protesters and demonstrators.

Justice Bhuyan stresses need for responsible policing

Justice Bhuyan said effective policing does not require excessive use of force or infringement of human rights. He emphasised that the police play an important role in maintaining public confidence because citizens generally approach the police when they feel they have been wronged.

He said maintaining the credibility of the police force was therefore of “utmost importance”.

The judge’s remarks come amid continuing scrutiny of the police and paramilitary response to the CJP protests in Delhi.

Supreme Court panel to examine police action

The Supreme Court has constituted a high-level panel to investigate allegations concerning the use of force by Delhi Police during the July 20 student protests at Jantar Mantar and the subsequent Parliament march.

The panel, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy, will examine complaints relating to lathi charges, tear gas, pellet guns and electronic batons. It will also look into allegations of targeted harassment or molestation of female protesters and review available CCTV and video footage.

The police response during the protests has faced criticism, while Delhi Police has maintained that its personnel were also attacked during the clashes.

Judge raises concern over custodial deaths and torture

Justice Bhuyan also spoke about custodial torture and deaths, describing custodial death as one of the gravest crimes in a society governed by the rule of law.

He stressed that torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be accepted, regardless of whether such conduct takes place during investigation, interrogation or other circumstances.

The judge further warned that when government functionaries themselves become lawbreakers, it can undermine respect for the law and encourage lawlessness.

He questioned whether citizens lose their fundamental rights simply because they have been arrested by police.

‘Fake encounters’ cannot be part of policing

Justice Bhuyan also addressed allegations of extra-judicial killings, commonly referred to as “fake encounters”. Referring to a 2011 Supreme Court judgment, he said such encounters undermine the rule of law.

He stressed that an “encounter philosophy” cannot become part of legitimate policing and said proven fake encounters involving serving police officers must be treated with the utmost seriousness.

The Supreme Court’s panel will now examine the allegations surrounding the police action during the July 20 protests as scrutiny of the events continues.

Continue Reading

India News

8 Tamil Nadu engineering students killed in Kerala car-lorry crash

Eight engineering students from Tamil Nadu were killed after their car collided with a parked lorry on NH-66 in Kerala’s Thrissur district.

Published

on

Eight engineering students from Tamil Nadu were killed after the car they were travelling in crashed into a parked lorry on NH-66 in Kerala’s Thrissur district late Friday night, police said.

The accident took place at around 11.40 pm at Panambikkunnu in Kaipamangalam. The students were travelling from Guruvayur towards Kodungallur when their car collided with the rear of the lorry.

What happened in the Thrissur accident

According to the FIR, the lorry was parked illegally on the right side of the highway near a barricaded section where traffic had been diverted because of ongoing construction work.

Police said the car was travelling at high speed and its driver apparently failed to notice the diversion barricade before the vehicle crashed into the rear of the lorry.

The lorry was registered in Maharashtra.

Six students died at the accident spot, while two others were declared dead on arrival at a nearby hospital, police said.

Six victims identified

The victims were students of an engineering college in Dindigul and were travelling towards Kodungallur along NH-66.

Police have identified six of the eight victims. Four of them — Surya, Yuvasanjith, Vishva and Johua — were from Dindigul. The other two identified victims were Santhosh and Prasanna from Madurai.

The identities of the remaining two students are yet to be confirmed.

Residents, fire and rescue personnel and police took part in the rescue operation and pulled the students from the badly damaged car. The bodies were subsequently taken to the mortuary of Thrissur Medical College.

Case registered against lorry driver

Kaipamangalam police have registered a case against the lorry driver under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for culpable homicide.

Police said the driver went into hiding shortly after the accident.

The families of the victims were contacted using student identity cards recovered from the bodies. Police said some families were unaware that their children had travelled to Kerala.

Postmortem examinations will begin after the families reach Thrissur Medical College, police said.

Continue Reading

India News

Air India sacks Phuket-Delhi flight pilot after failing drug test

Air India has terminated the Phuket-Delhi flight pilot after a confirmatory test found a psychoactive substance following the August 4 incident.

Published

on

Air India has terminated the employment of the pilot-in-command of a Phuket-Delhi flight after he tested positive for a psychoactive substance.

The pilot was in command of flight AI2379, which was travelling from Phuket to Delhi on August 4 when the aircraft suddenly lost altitude over Odisha. The incident left 24 passengers injured.

Air India said the termination was in line with its zero-tolerance policy regarding safety violations and regulatory requirements.

Air India terminates pilot with immediate effect

In a statement, the Tata-owned airline said the pilot-in-command had tested positive for a psychoactive substance.

The airline said that, considering its zero-tolerance approach to violations related to safety, fitness and regulatory requirements, the pilot’s employment had been terminated with immediate effect.

Air India also said it continues to cooperate fully with the investigation into the incident and has provided access to relevant operational, maintenance and technical records.

What happened on the Phuket-Delhi flight?

According to the preliminary findings of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the Airbus A320 was carrying 145 people when it experienced the near-simultaneous loss of all three hydraulic systems while cruising at around 36,000 feet.

The technical failure resulted in the autopilot disconnecting and triggered a brief stall warning. The aircraft subsequently lost altitude, resulting in injuries to 24 passengers.

The preliminary report also noted that the pilot tested non-negative for a psychoactive substance in a confirmatory test.

However, the report did not establish that the pilot’s drug-test result caused or contributed to the hydraulic system failure or the subsequent loss of altitude.

AAIB recommends action over psychoactive substance finding

The AAIB described the confirmation of psychoactive substance use as a serious concern and recommended that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) take appropriate action against the pilot on priority.

The investigation into the technical and other aspects of the incident is still underway.

The preliminary report also noted that the co-pilot was flying the aircraft when the incident occurred and attempted to bring the situation under control.

Air India said safety remains its highest priority and that its pilots undergo training, proficiency checks, medical examinations and other regulatory assessments in accordance with applicable requirements.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com