Amidst a war of words between BJP leaders in Karnataka and Maharashtra over the border row in the past week, Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai, who on Sunday reviewed the State’s legal preparation ahead of the case coming up in Supreme Court next week, exuded confidence of Karnataka’s interest being protected in the court.
The case filed by Maharashtra is expected to come up before the apex court on November 30. While the Chief Minister had earlier announced convening an all-party meeting to discuss an out-of-the-court discussion as proposed by Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, he said that a convenient date would be fixed in the next three to four days after speaking to Home Minister Araga Jananendra. Sources in the Chief Minister’s office said that the government was in a fix over scheduling the all-party meeting for want of time before the hearing, but decided to go ahead with it.
The sources also said that Opposition leader Siddaramaiah had been kept in the loop on the steps taken by the State.
Meanwhile, Mr. Siddaramaiah has also called for a strong legal team to defend Karnataka’s case in the Supreme Court. Speaking to reporters here on Sunday, he said that he would make suggestions at the all-party meeting.
The sources said that the State had already set up a five-member legal team, comprising Mukul Rohtagi, Uday Holla, and Shyam Divan, among others. The Chief Minister discussed the preparedness with the newly appointed chairman of Karnataka River and Border Protection Authority V. Shivaraj Patil and Advocate-General Prabhuling Navadagi, among others, on Sunday.
According to Mr. Bommai, Karnataka was confident of responding to the legal challenge in the court. “I will again have a discussion with the legal team on November 29 when I visit Delhi. Today, I have been informed that Karnataka is on firm legal ground. We also discussed major developments on the border issue since Maharashtra dragged it to Supreme Court in 2004, and the developments will be brought to the notice of the court.” Mr. Bommai also pointed to the question of admissibility raised by the apex court in 2017.
