Tamil Nadu on Saturday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Centre’s decision to give Central Water Commission (CWC) chief S. Masood Husain additional charge as chairman of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA).
The State told the top court that Mr. Husain’s appointment smacked of conflict of interest.
Contempt of court
Incidentally, Tamil Nadu had, a few days earlier, moved the court seeking contempt of court action against Mr. Husain in person for approving the feasibility report of Karnataka’s proposed Balancing Reservoir-cum-Drinking Water project at Mekedatu with “utter disregard” to the Supreme Court and the Cauvery Tribunal’s decisions to provide ample storage and distribution of water to Tamil Nadu.
Tamil Nadu said Mr. Husain was given additional charge as CWMA chairman in July 2018. In November, the CWC, through the Director, Project Appraisal (South) Directorate, who works under the CWC chief, unilaterally accorded permission to the feasibility report for the Mekedatu project.
“There is every likelihood that conflict of interest would arise in the discharge of dual function by the Chairman, CWC…The Chairman of the CWMA [additional charge] is also the Chairman of the CWC, under whom the Project Appraisal (South) Directorate had entertained the Mekedatu Feasibility Report submitted by the instrumentalities of Karnataka. This authority granted permission for the preparation of DPR for the Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir-cum-Drinking Water project,” Tamil Nadu submitted.
The State said the CWC had failed to honour and implement the decisions of the Cauvery Tribunal and the Supreme Court by unilaterally according permission to the Karnataka government to proceed with the preparation of the Detailed Project Report for the Mekedatu project in violation of the decisions of the tribunal and the court on equitable apportionment of Cauvery water.
Genuine objections
The State said the decision of the Director, Project Appraisal (South), CWC, to allow Karnataka to proceed with the preparation of DPR “without properly considering the genuine and justifiable objections of Tamil Nadu is wholly unjust.” This decision was taken despite the Supreme Court having directed that care be taken to ensure enough storage in the Cauvery basin of Karnataka to enable release of water to Tamil Nadu during the crunch months from June to January. Tamil Nadu said there was every possibility that the CWMA won’t act independently and would come under the influence of the CWC. It said an independent person should be appointed to lead the CWMA, whose functions include storage, apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters, supervision of operation of reservoirs and regulation of water release.
Besides, the State said the law mandated the Union Ministry of Water Resources to appoint a full-time chairperson for the CWMA under the Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018, established under Section 6A of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. Instead, Mr. Husain was given additional charge, it pointed out.
“The CWMA, even after six months from the date of its constitution, is yet to be established in a full-fledged manner. The full-time chairman and members are yet to be posted and made fully functional,” Tamil Nadu said.
