Supreme Court Jundgements

Hello ! Gangadhar , Sir , You have omitted to read the last point # 11 in my comment which is reproduced below . " The bench rejected the plea for keeping its September 5 order in abeyance and said it had a cascading effect as Tamil Nadu was to release proportionate water to Puducherry ." The quite strange workouts of the Statistics here and there must have been merely happenstances . This bench was kind enough to spare the Karnataka Govt. over and above the SC Judgement dt. 24/10/2002 sharply directed at the Karnataka Govt in which the then SC Bench bluntly said that "if an elected government says because of law and order problem, it cannot comply with our order, then let it go while observing orally that the SC would not allow a Government to gain political mileage out of flouting SC orders and pulled up the Central Government for not doing its duty to see that the SC's orders are complied to. " So, now , it is history twice the Karnataka State incurred the wrath of the SC . Hopefully not a third time ! more  

Sorry, your are wrong Karnataka Govt., had to release 150,000 cusecs of water vide order dated 05.09.2016 amounting to total qty. 0f 150,000 cusecs but order dated 12.09.2016 amounts to total of 198,000 cusecs. This is quite strange, is it not? more  

The situation brought by the Congress Party in the Union of States is such , there is no Citizen Responsibility nor Responsible Politician even in such issues of Basic and Essential issue of WATER . 1. If the upper State release abundant waters to save their Citizen from Flood loss of lives of living beings besides the very loss of properties ; The lower-level State if full of Rain waters , will also has to safeguard their own very Citizen for the same losses . Only in case they need waters , they can accept and receive such waters from Dams as other wise , there will be CIVIL WARS . 2. If the Upper State or Lower level State is at drought , Drinking waters will be even carried through Road and Rail Tankers if there are no interlinking Canals / Dams WHERE WILL BE SHARED CONTENTMENT . Even if the State lets for Agriculture also , there will be sharing of contentment . 3. While these 2 are shared at best relations or , shared relations with balanced Mind or , UNION CONTROL TILL LAST DECADE IN THIS COUNTRY ; The issues happened with Maharashtra to the then A.P. on Godawary Waters ; The way the then Congress ruling at Center and Maharashtra observed silence even on the issues went Serious for Krishna Waters between karnataka and , the then A.P. ; REALLY RUINED THE BASIC CONCEPT OF SHARING AND CONTENTMENT BETWEEN THE POLITICIANS & THEIR CITIZEN of one State with that of THE POLITICIANS & THEIR CITIZEN OF THE OTHER STATE NOW . 4. The issue of Challenging even the Supreme Court Orders even in regard to Waters from one State Citizen to other State Citizen is in deed the issue of national interest and Citizen Responsibility and the very basic sense of humanity application for forever address WHICH IS NOT EASY TO UNDERSTAND IN ITS CONCEPT AND OBJECT since every thing has been set at Rights and Liberties . 5. Earlier , all such issues were set settled through Social attempt by those Leaders of Social importance in the people and Center and all such failed just like in the other issues . IT IS TRUE THAT SOCIAL LEADERS ARE WELL ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCH ISSUES AND CIRCUMSTANCES SECONDING THE SUPREME COURT and not the Governments since these issues went political and not at real concept please . more  

Hello Gangadhar , Thank you for your alertness . The Registrar of the Supreme Court must have come to know by now the facts you have stated and acted for damage-control . However , after reading today's Times of India News Paper , I feel satisfaction that the Supreme Court has established its supremacy perfectly-well to ensure Rule of Law . I present the facts of the Judgement below for your perusal . 1. K'taka gets earful from SC for protests against its order  2. Water To TN Reduced From 15k To 12k Cusecs Daily. 3.The Supreme Court gave an earful to Kannadigas violently protesting against its September 5 order for release of 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water daily to Tamil Nadu and slammed the Congress regime in Karnataka for succumbing to rowdyism and seeking review of the order. In a special sitting on Monday , a holiday for the court, a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and U U Lalit reduced the release of Cauvery water from 15,000 cusecs to 12,000 cusecs a day, but not before rebuking the Siddaramaiah government for approaching the SC on Sunday with an application that exhibited its failure in controlling mob violence against the SC's order. 4. Appearing for Karnataka, senior lawyer Fali S Nariman was quick to abandon the grounds for seeking modification of the September 5 order and even termed them “erroneous“. Karnataka had cited “spontaneous agitation“ in Bengaluru, Mandya, Mysuru and Hassan in the Cauvery basin and said it had paralysed normal life and public property worth hundreds of crores of rupees was vandalised. Nariman expressed regret and the bench accepted it. The SC blamed the state authorities and reiterated that it was the government's duty to maintain law and order and ensure compliance of the order. 5. If Karnataka had thought citing violence would evoke the SC's sympathy , the bench's reaction was diametrically opposite. It slammed both, the Kannadigas who unleashed violence and the Karnataka government, and said, “An order of the SC has to be complied with by all concerned and it is the obligation of the executive to see that the order is complied with in letter and spirit. Concept of deviancy has no room, and disobedience has no space.“ 6. Lecturing the protesters, the bench said: “Citizens cannot become a law unto themselves. When a court of law passes an order, it is the sacred duty of citizens to obey the same. If there is any grievance, they are obligated under the law to take recourse to permissible legal remedy .“ It added: “We expect the inhabitants of both states, TN and Karnataka, shall behave and the executives of both states are under the constitutional obligation to see that law and order prevails.“ 7. The SC criticised the Karnataka government application for modification of the September 5 order, indicating that it did not reflect the “permissible legal recourse“. The bench said, “The tenor of the application filed by the Karnataka government does not reflect so, but, on the contrary , demonstrates otherwise. We decry it.“ 8. Abandoning violence as a ground for seeking modification, Nariman said Tamil Nadu was not starved of water. “Tamil Nadu's reservoir at Mettur has more water than total water stored in Karnataka's reservoir.“ He said outflow from Mettur reservoir to the systems dependent on it was 1,250 cusecs per day for `samba' crops against a total release of 84,168 cusecs at Billigundulu by Karnataka from September 5 till September 12. 9. Apprehending shortage of water for drinking and irrigation in Karnataka, Nari man requested the SC to keep the September 5 order in abeyance as “the supervisory committee is meeting on Monday to decide the necessity (of releasing additional water) having regard to the plight of both states“. Nariman was assisted by senior advocates Anil B Divan and S S Javali. 10. For Tamil Nadu, senior advocates Shekhar Naphade, Rakesh Dwivedi and Subramonium Prasadsaid flawed facts were presented before the court to divert attention from the fact that Tamil Nadu did not have adequate storage of water to meet the demand during this critical period. The senior advocates criticised Karnataka for seeking modification of the order on the ground of law and order situation. 11. The bench rejected the plea for keeping its September 5 order in abeyance and said it had a cascading effect as Tamil Nadu was to release proportionate water to Puducherry . more