Karnataka Assembly adopts resolution on Mekedatu project, counters Tamil Nadu
Bengaluru, Mar 24: The Karnataka Legislative Assembly on Thursday unanimously adopted a resolution countering Tamil Nadu's similar move regarding the Mekedatu project across river Cauvery.
While exerting pressure on the Centre to give necessary clearances for the project, the resolution also urges it not to finalise the DPR under the 'Peninsular River Development Plan' without the state's consent, and not to give approval for Tamil Nadu's "illegal" projects.
Piloted by Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai, the resolution condemns Tamil Nadu Assembly's resolution opposing the Mekedatu project, stating that it will in no way affect that state.
It also urged the Central Water Commission and Ministry of Environment and Forest to immediately give necessary clearance for the Mekedatu project.
It also urges the concerned central agencies not to finalise the DPR for Godavari - Krishna -Pennar - Cauvery - Vaigai - Gundar river linking, until the legitimate share of the concerned states are decided upon and until all aspects of it (DPR) are agreeable to Karnataka, and also not give approval for Tamil Nadu's "illegal" projects and to direct it not to go ahead with them.
The Tamil Nadu Assembly on Monday 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.
Terming the Tamil Nadu's resolution as unwarranted, against federal system, and the language used in as impolite, Bommai, citing Supreme Court order regarding Cauvery river water dispute, said Karnataka is within its Constitutional rights to implement the Mekedatu project.
Pointing out that National Water Policy gives priority for drinking water, he said, this is a drinking water project and will in no way violate the tribunal's orders.
Noting that Tamil Nadu has said that its consent is required for the implementation of Mekedatu project, the Chief Minister said, but at the same time by unilaterally taking up projects illegally, without seeking for Karnataka's consent, the neighbouring state is depicting its dual stand.
"We strongly condemn Tamil Nadu's illegal projects and will oppose them on all platforms," he said.
Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Siddaramaiah, and JD(S) Deputy Leader Bandeppa Kashempur, extended their parties support for the resolution to be passed unanimously.
Though Senior Congress MLA and former Water Resources Minister H K Patil had some reservations regarding the wordings in the resolution concerning Peninsular River Development Plan, in the interest of the state, it was finally agreed upon by slightly amending it.
Finally Speaker Vishweshwar Hegde Kageri put the resolution moved by Bommai to vote, and it was unanimously adopted by a voice vote.
The state budget 2022-23, presented by Bommai recently, provided a grant of Rs 1,000 crore 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 will benefit both states as the surplus water stored can be managed between the two during a distress year, and its implementation will in no way affect the interests of Tamil Nadu's farming communities, as there will be no impact on its share of water.
However, 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.
Disqualification row: SC unhappy over Telangana CM's statement on bye-elections
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed its displeasure over Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy's statement in the assembly that there would be no bye-elections, and said he was expected to exercise "some degree of restraint".
"Did we commit a mistake by letting him go at that time and not taking an action for contempt?" a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih asked.
The top court was perhaps referring to a separate matter in which it had last year disapproved of Reddy's comments on the top court granting bail to rival BRS leader K Kavitha in cases linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
The apex court's observations came during the arguments on the pleas raising the issue of alleged delay by the Telangana Assembly speaker in deciding on petitions seeking disqualification of 10 BRS MLAs who had defected to the Congress.
The bench reserved its verdict in the matter.
During the arguments, the issue over Reddy's recent statement in the assembly cropped up before the bench.
"Mr Singhvi, having experience of earlier occasion, was the chief minister not expected to at least exercise some degree of restraint?" Justice Gavai asked senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who was appearing for the assembly speaker.
Justice Gavai said the court was not bothered about statements of politicians.
"We exercise self-restraint. We respect the other two wings of the democracy. Same is expected of the other two wings also," he said.
Senior advocate C A Sundaram, representing the petitioner and BRS leader Padi Kaushik Reddy, referred to the transcripts of the chief minister's statement, calling it shocking.
A BRS MLA, the counsel said, had said in the assembly that this should not be raked up as the matter was pending before the apex court but the chief minister still made the statement.
Sundaram quoted the chief minister's statement as saying, "Mr speaker, I am telling on your behalf to everyone present in the assembly that they need not worry about any bye-elections in future. No Bye-elections will come".
Sundaram said when the chief minister made the statement, the speaker did not say anything.
During the hearing, the bench asked what would be the "reasonable period" for a speaker to decide on the disqualification petitions.
It asked whether such applications for disqualification "should be permitted to die its natural death and the Tenth Schedule be thrown in the dustbin?".
The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution deals with provisions on disqualification on the ground of defection.
Sundaram requested the bench to put a time limit for deciding the disqualification petitions, referring to it as an "extraordinary situation".
Reddy had allegedly said in the assembly on March 26 that there would be no bye-elections even if BRS members switched sides.
"If this is said on the floor of the house, your chief minister is making a mockery of the Tenth Schedule," the bench said on April 2.
The apex court had also asked the speaker why he took about 10 months to issue notices on the petitions for the disqualification of BRS MLAs who defected to the Congress.
While one of the pleas in the apex court has challenged the November 2024 order of the Telangana High Court in a matter concerning petitions seeking the disqualification of three BRS MLAs, another petition relates to the remaining seven legislators who defected.
A division bench of the high court in November last year said the Assembly speaker must decide the disqualification petitions against the three MLAs within a "reasonable time".
The division bench's verdict came on the appeals against the September 9, 2024, order of a single judge.
The single judge had directed the secretary of the Telangana Assembly to place the petition seeking the disqualifications before the speaker for fixing a schedule of hearing within four weeks.
On March 4, the apex court sought responses from the Telangana government and others on the pleas, saying a timely decision was the key and there could not be a case of "operation successful but patient is dead".
It had also sought the responses of MLAs Danam Nagender, Venkata Rao Tellam and Kadiyam Srihari in the matter.
