It is unfortunate that the Cauvery dispute(विवाद/विचार) is once again before the Supreme Court, barely(मुश्किल से/मात्र) weeks after the final verdict(निर्णय). The Centre is to blame for the dispute going into another round of litigation(मुकदमेबाजी). While Tamil Nadu has moved the court to initiate(आरंभ) contempt(निन्दनीय/मानहानि) proceedings against the Centre for not complying(पालन करना/इच्छा पूरा करना) with the direction to frame a scheme to implement(लागू) the water-sharing arrangement set out in the February 16 judgment, the Centre has sought three more months and some clarifications in the court order. It is difficult to believe the issue at hand is so perplexing(हैरान करनेवाला) that the Centre had no option but to come back to the court. It appears that it does not want to handle the issue until the Karnataka Assembly elections get over in mid-May. Political and electoral considerations(ध्यान/विचार) appear to have dictated the Centre’s action. It is almost as if it believes that as long as the option of buying further time is available, it need not fulfil its legal obligations. It is unfortunate that just before the expiry of the court’s six-week deadline, the Centre came up with a petition(याचिका/सिफ़ारिश) asking the court to clarify whether the proposed scheme should be the same as that which the Tribunal had set out in its final award in 2007, or could be at variance with it.
It is true that there is a divergence(अंतर/विस्तार) of opinion between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka on the proposed mechanism and its composition. While Tamil Nadu wants the ‘scheme’ envisaged(परिकल्पना की गई/उल्लिखित)by the court to mean nothing other than the Cauvery Management Board and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee, mentioned in the Tribunal’s final award, Karnataka says there is no reference to a ‘board’ in the apex court’s order, and that the Centre could frame a scheme different from that described(वर्णित) by the Tribunal. It contends that the apex court envisaged a ‘dispute resolution body’, and not the ‘management board’ favoured by the Tribunal. Against this backdrop, the Centre could have exercised discretion and come up with a scheme that would include an inter-State body to oversee the water-sharing. At the latest hearing(सुनवाई/पेशी),the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, observed that the term ‘scheme’ mentioned in the judgment did not refer to only a ‘board’. He also assured(आश्वासन) Tamil Nadu that the court would ensure that it was not deprived(वंचित) of its share of Cauvery water. It is an indication(संकेत/सूचना) that it is not the nomenclature(शब्दावली/तालिका) but the nature of the relief that matters. It will be wise for all parties to remember that disputes are better resolved on the basis of equity and notprolonged(लंबा/दीर्घकालीन) on expedient considerations. The Centre’s actions should not amount to undermining the finality of the highest court’s judgment, and should be unwaveringly in aid of its implementation(कार्यान्वयन/अमल).
Important Vocabulary
1.Contempt(निन्दनीय/मानहानि)
Synonyms: antipathy, condescension, defiance, derision, disregard
Antonyms: approval, esteem, flattery, friendliness, honor
2.Complying(पालन करना/इच्छा पूरा करना)
Synonyms: acquiesce, adhere to, give in, give up, obey
Antonyms: disobey dissuade, condemn, deny, disallow
3.Petition(याचिका/सिफ़ारिश)
Synonyms: application, prayer, request, suit, address
4.Divergence(अंतर/विस्तार)
Synonyms: discrepancy, disparity, distinction, diversity, aberration
Antonyms: sameness, similarity, conformity, uniformity, accord
5.Implementation(कार्यान्वयन/अमल).
Synonyms: application, discharge, employment, enjoyment, exertion
Antonyms: dissatisfaction, failure, idleness
6.Nomenclature(शब्दावली/तालिका)
Synonyms: classification, codification, glossary, locution, phraseology
7.Deprived(वंचित)
Synonyms: destitute, disadvantaged, dispossessed, needy, underprivileged
Antonyms: privileged, prosperous, rich, wealthy
Credits To The Hindu News Paper
