New Delhi, Apr 9 (NIE): The Supreme Court on Monday will hear the Centre’s plea seeking clarification on the February 16 verdict regarding setting up of a Cauvery management scheme in the decades-old river water sharing dispute. It will also hear the Tamil Nadu government’s petition, seeking contempt action against the Centre for failing to set up the Cauvery Management Board on time.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud reserved the hearing for Monday on the Centre’s plea, after its counsel referred to divergent views of the concerned states on the issue of setting up of the scheme. “We will take this matter on April 9 along with the plea of Tamil Nadu,” the bench had said, when the Centre’s counsel requested for urgent hearing of the plea.

The apex court had on February 16 raised the 270 tmcft share of Cauvery water for Karnataka by 14.75 tmcft and reduced Tamil Nadu’s share while compensating it by allowing extraction of 10 tmcft groundwater from the river basin, saying the issue of drinking water has to be placed on a “higher pedestal”. It also directed the Centre to formulate a scheme to ensure compliance of its 465-page judgement on water dispute. It further modified the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) award of 2007 and made it clear that it will not be extending time for this on any ground.

However, the Tamil Nadu government alleged that the Centre has failed to implement the order of the top court which had given the latter six weeks to frame the scheme. The Centre had approached the court, seeking a three-month extension to implement the February 16 order.

“We understand Tamil Nadu’s difficulty of not getting water. We will resolve the issue. List the matter for April 9,” a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had told the Tamil Nadu counsel when he mentioned the matter and sought early hearing. The CJI remarked that the term “scheme” used in the February 16 judgment does not mean the CMB alone.

The petition said it was filed to “protect the interests of the farmers and the larger interests of the State”. “The central government was duty bound to take steps to facilitating implementation of the judgment by itself deciding and taking necessary action to constitute the machinery as per the mandate…”, it said, and added that “it (Centre) has not taken any concrete steps in this regard.”