SC asks K’taka for data on drinking water needs

January 29, 2013

Drinking_water

New Delhi, Jan 29: The Supreme Court on Monday, while hearing a plea from Tamil Nadu for water release by Karnataka from the Cauvery river to save its wilting paddy crop, said drinking water requirement must get priority over irrigation needs of a state.

A bench of Justices R M Lodha and J Chelameswar observed that some out-of-box thinking was required to find a solution to the vexed issue of sharing Cauvery river water among the sparring states.

The court told Karnataka to furnish details of its drinking water consumption pattern from 1992 onwards, and posted the matter for further hearing to Tuesday.

The court concurred with the finding of the Cauvery Monitoring Committee (CMC) that the storage in Karnataka reservoirs was adequate to meet only the State’s drinking water needs and that should get precedence over TN’s demand.

The bench, however, pulled up Karnataka for failing to maintain a constant flow.

“What pains us is the observation made by the CMC that you (Karnataka) have not regulated the constant flow. There are very specific observations… citizens cannot be made to suffer like this. Some equal apportionment has to be done. It can’t be left to the mercy of somebody. Of course, drinking water must get priority... The apportionment has to be done in such a manner that drinking water need is fulfilled and irrigation requirement is also met,” the bench said.

The court was hearing a plea made by Tamil Nadu seeking direction to Karnataka to release 12 tmc ft of Cauvery water to save its standing samba crop and meet the drinking water needs of the people.

The court asked senior counsel C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for TN, “What is wrong with the observation of CMC that drinking water is to be given precedence over irrigation needs?”

When the TN counsel responded that the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal had in its interim award in 1992 and final order in 2007 assessed the drinking water requirements, the court countered, “How can the drinking water requirement assessed 20 years back be considered today?” Vaidyanathan said this was a sorry state of affairs and TN cannot agree with everything that Karnataka says.

Senior advocate Fali S Nariman, representing Karnataka, submitted that a statutory scheme enjoined that anybody aggrieved by the order of CMC could approach the Cauvery River Authority (CRA) headed by the Prime Minister.

He said that the tribunal’s final order has been challenged by each party and the appeal was pending. “We want to find out some solution in terms of present requirement,” the court said, asking TN to explain how it calculated Karnataka’s drinking water requirement as one tmc ft a day.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 9,2020

New Delhi, Jan 9: The Union government has removed the central security cover of Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister O Paneerselvam and DMK leader M K Stalin, officials said on Thursday.

They said while Paneerselvam had a smaller 'Y+' cover of central paramilitary commandos, Stalin had a larger 'Z+' protection.

The security cover of these two politicians has been taken off from the central security list after a threat assessment review was made by central security agencies and approved by the Union home ministry, they said.

Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) commandos were protecting these two leaders of Tamil Nadu.

However, they said, the central security cover will be formally taken off after the state police takes over their security task, they added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com web desk
June 16,2020

New Delhi, Jun 16: Despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi led government’s attempt to downplay the border dispute with China, matters have heated up unprecedentedly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC)- the effective Sino-India border in Eastern Ladakh. 

The country has lost three precious lives – an army officer and two soldiers. The last time blood was spilled on the LAC, before the latest episode, was 45 years ago when the Chinese ambushed an Assam Rifles patrol in Tulung La.

India had lost four soldiers on October 20, 1975 in Tulung La, the last time bullets were fired on the India-China border though both the countries witnessed bitter stand-offs later at Sumdorong Chu valley in 1987, Depsang in 2013, Chumar in 2014 and Doklam in 2017.

Between 1962 and 1975, the biggest clash between India and China took place in Nathu La pass in 1967 when reports suggest that around 80 Indian soldiers were killed and many more Chinese personnel.

While three soldiers, including a Commanding Officer, were killed in the latest episode in Galwan Valley, the government describes it as a "violent clash" and does not mention opening fire.

New Delhi described the locality where the 1975 incident took place as "well within" its territory only to be rebuffed by Beijing as "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong".

The Ministry of External Affairs had then said that the Chinese had crossed the LAC and ambushed the soldiers while Beijing claimed the Indians entered their territory and did not return despite warnings.

The Indian government maintained that the ambush on the Assam Rifles' patrol in 1975 took place "500 metres south of Tulung" on the border between India and Tibet and "therefore in Indian territory". It said Chinese soldiers "penetrating" Indian territory implied a "change in China's position" on the border question but the Chinese denied this and blamed India for the incident.

The US diplomatic cables quoted an Indian military intelligence officer saying that the Chinese had erected stone walls on the Indian side of Tulung La and from these positions fired several hundred rounds at the Indian patrol.

"Four of the Indians had gone into a leading position while two (the ones who escaped) remained behind. The senior military intelligence officer emphasised that the soldiers on the Indian patrol were from the area and had patrolled that same region many times before," the cable said.

One of the US cables showed that former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger sought details of the October 1975 clash "without approaching the host governments on actual location of October 20 incident". He also wanted to know what ground rules were followed regarding the proximity of LAC by border patrols.

A cable sent from the US mission in India on November 4, 1975 appeared to have doubts about the Chinese account saying it was "highly defensive".

"Given the unsettled situation on the sub-continent, particularly in Bangladesh, both Chinese and Indian authorities have authorised stepped up patrols along the disputed border. The clash may well have ensued when two such patrols unexpectedly encountered each other," it said.

Another cable from China on the same day quoted another October 1974 cable, which spoke about Chinese officials being concerned for long that "some hotheaded person on the PRC (People's Republic of China) might provoke an incident that could lead to renewed Sino-Indian hostilities. It went on to say that this clash suggested that "such concerns and apprehensions are not unwarranted".

According to the United States diplomatic cables, Chinese Foreign Ministry on November 3, 1975 disputed the statement of the MEA spokesperson, who said the incident took place inside Indian territory.

The Chinese had said "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong". In its version of the 1975 incident, they said Indian troops crossed the LAC at 1:30 PM at Tulung Pass on the Eastern Sector and "intruded" into their territory when personnel at the Civilian Checkpost at Chuna in Tibet warned them to withdraw.

Ignoring this, they claimed, Indian soldiers made "continual provocation and even opened fire at the Chinese civilian checkpost personnel, posing a grave threat to the life of the latter. The Chinese civilian checkpost personnel were obliged to fire back in self defence."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson had also said they told the Indian side that they could collect the bodies "anytime" and on October 28, collected the bodies, weapons and ammunition and "signed a receipt".

The US cables from the then USSR suggested that the official media carried reports from Delhi on the October 1975 incident and they cited only Indian accounts of the incident "ridiculing alleged Chinese claims that the Indians crossed the line and opened fire first".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 13,2020

New Delhi, June 13: A quarantine notice pasted outside former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s 3, Motilal Nehru Place residence has raised speculations among media and political circles.

According to reports, the daughter of a domestic help who works at Singh’s residence has tested positive. She and her family, who live in the servant quarters, have been quarantined.

Singh, who has not been keeping well for some time, is slowly getting active. Congress leaders said the former Prime Minister attended a meeting of the party’s consultative committee on Thursday through video conference.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.