Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

On Cauvery

In my leader page article on June 4, 2007, I had expressed some doubts regarding the simultaneous submission of petitions by the parties to the Cauvery Tribunal and the Supreme Court. Those doubts have been borne out by events. It is reported that the Tribunal has refused to hear the petitions of the State and Central Governments at this stage as the parties have gone to the Supreme Court challenging the Final Order itself.

The Tribunal’s position is understandable. When it is not clear whether the Supreme Court is going to uphold the Final Order or overturn or modify it, how can the Tribunal hear clarificatory petitions and issue further orders? At the same time, the ISWD Act requires the Tribunal to deal with such petitions and issue orders. What this means is that the Supreme Court, by admitting the SLPs, has not only made an unexamined and unargued assumption of jurisdiction, but has also made it very difficult if not impossible for the Tribunal to function. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (Who shall guard the guards)?

Ramaswamy R. Iyer,
New Delhi

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Double standards against terrorism
Curbing unsolicited telephone calls
Heritage at stake, strengthen the ASI
Australia’s leading newspaper criticises government action against Haneef
Wooing the new Indian tourist out of london
LDC brain drain: best move out, so rest lose out
How secure is Facebook?
Corrections and clarifications
Presidential poll
Haneef’s case
Mountbatten & Jinnah
On Cauvery

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu