Tamil Nadu resolution on Mekedatu illegal, Karnataka will go ahead with project: CM Bommai
Bengaluru(PTI): Terming the resolution adopted by the Tamil Nadu Assembly condemning the decision of Karnataka to proceed with the Mekedatu project across Cauvery as illegal, Chief Minister of the State Basavaraj Bommai on Monday said his government was committed to implement the project.
In a series of tweets, he called the decision of Tamil Nadu to oppose the project as political and accused that State of not having faith in the federal system.
"The resolution adopted today in the Tamil Nadu Assembly against the Mekedatu project is illegal. This is an anti-people resolution wherein a State is trying to infringe upon the rights of another. This resolution shows that Tamil Nadu doesn't believe in a federal system," Bommai tweeted.
Stating that the people and the government of Karnataka condemn the resolution, he said, "We are firm on our decision to implement the Mekedatu project across river Cauvery that takes birth in our State."
"Karnataka has the right over the remaining water after giving Tamil Nadu 177.25 tmc as per the Cauvery tribunal order. The government is taking necessary steps to take up the Mekedatu project irrespective of the political decision of Tamil Nadu," he said.
The Tamil Nadu Assembly today adopted a unanimous resolution condemning the Karnataka government for its unilateral decision to proceed with the Mekedatu project and prevail upon the Centre to reject the proposal.
Karnataka's DPR of the project is before the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA), also the matter is before the Environment Ministry for clearance.
The State budget, presented by Bommai recently, provided a grant of Rs 1,000 crore in this year for implementation of the project.
The Mekedatu multi-purpose (drinking and power) project involves building a balancing reservoir near Kanakapura in Ramanagara district.
The estimated Rs 9,000-crore project once completed is aimed at ensuring drinking water to Bengaluru and neighbouring areas (4.75 TMC) and it can also generate 400 MW of power.
Karnataka has maintained that the project within its territory would benefit both States as the surplus water stored can be managed between the two during times of distress, and its implementation would in no way affect the interests of the farming communities in Tamil Nadu, as there would be no impact on its share of water.
But, the neighbouring State is of the view that the project would impound and divert the uncontrolled water flow due to Tamil Nadu from Kabini sub-basin, the catchment area below Krishnarajasagara, and also from Simsha, Arkavathy and Suvarnavathi sub-basins besides other small streams.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Questioning religious practices will break religion, civilisation: SC in Dawoodi Bohras case
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday remarked that if individuals start questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court then there will be hundreds of petitions questioning different rituals, leading to the breaking of religions and the civilisation.
The nine-judge Constitution bench is hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, and on the ambit and scope of the religious freedom practised by multiple faiths, including Dawoodi Bohras.
The bench comprises Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
The Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community filed a PIL in 1986 seeking the setting aside of a 1962 judgment, which had struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949 -- this law made excommunication of any community member illegal.
The 1962 Constitution bench judgment said, "It is evident from the religious faith and tenets of the Dawoodi Bohra community that the exercise of the power of excommunication by its religious head on religious grounds formed part of the management of its affairs in matters of religion and the 1949 Act in making even such excommunication invalid, infringed the right of the community under Article 26(b) of the Constitution."
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing a group of reformist Dawoodi Bohras, submitted that a practice which is conducted in response to secular and social actions of an individual cannot be the subject of Constitutional protection under Article 25 of the Constitution and consequently cannot be a ‘matter of religion’ under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Ramachandran told the court that a practice which may have a religious aspect but also significantly and adversely impacts fundamental rights is not immune to restriction under Article 25 of the Constitution or Article 26 of the Constitution.
Responding to the submission, Justice Nagarathna said that if everybody starts questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court, then "what happens to this civilisation where religion is so intimately connected with the Indian society".
"There will be hundreds of petitions questioning this right that right, opening of the temple, and the closure of the temple. We are conscious of this," she said.
Adding to the response, Justice Sundresh said, "Every religion will break and every constitutional court will have to be closed.
"If the dispute between two entities are allowed then everybody will question everything. In your case there may be a civil wrong committed to you but in another case, another member will say I don't agree. It is regressive. To what extent can we go in a country like ours which is progressive and on the move is the question," he said.
Justice Nagarathna went on that what sets apart India from any other region is that "we are a civilisation" despite having so many pluralities and diversities?
Asserting that diversity is the country's strength, she added, "One of the constants in our Indian society is the relationship of human beings -- man, woman and child -- with the religion."
"Now, how a religious practice or a matter of religion is questioned, where it is questioned, whether it can be questioned, whether it has to be a question within a denomination for a reform or whether the state will have to do or you want the court to adjudicate upon all these aspects. This is troubling us.
"What we lay down, is for a civilisation that is India. India must progress despite all its economy, everything there is a constant in us. We can’t break that constant. That is what is troubling us ," she said.
Ramachandran replied that India is a civilisation under the Constitution and therefore nothing which goes against the grain of constitution can be continued in a civilised society.
He said that's where court's task come in and "it can't throw hands" and say there will be so many petitions.
