Severly indicting Karnataka Chief Minister S M Krishna, the Supreme Court today said that it would hold him guilty of contempt in the Cauvery case but at the instance of the state, put off pronouncing any order till next week. With options running out, a visibly sullen Krishna went into a huddle with his legal advisors and ministerial colleagues at the Karnataka Bhavan soon after the court’s proceedings this afternoon. And, significantly, in the evening, he met Solicitor General Harish Salve at his residence to work out a face-saver, if possible. KRISHNA’S PROBLEMS NOW IN SPATE • Till late at night, hadn’t ordered release from the State’s reservoirs • But he has no option: In defying court order, Cong loses moral high ground over Sangh in similar cases (Ayodhya) • Turning on the tap will make him unpopular with farming community, loses political mileage • Has to convince farmers that they can no longer dictate rules of the game • Immediate priority: avoid repeat of 1991, when mobs went on anti-Tamil rampage But until late tonight, he had still not ordered releases from the State’s reservoirs with the obvious threat of protests from people in the Cauvery basin districts playing on his mind. A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India B N Kirpal, said it would decide the quantum of penalty to be imposed on Karnataka and its functionaries, including Krishna, on Tuesday after hearing Salve’s views. Given the political sensitivity of the matter, observers say it’s unlikely that the court will go to the extent of imposing a sentence of imprisonment on Krishna. One options which may be considered by the court is to slap damages on Karnataka for the crop that was ruined in Tamil Nadu. Brushing aside Karnataka’s protestations of innocence, the bench, which includes Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice Arijit Pasayat, said: ‘‘We are prima facie of the view that there is deliberate non-compliance of our orders and this is contempt.’’ Karnataka counsel Anil Divan argued vehemently that the court orders directing Karnataka to release more water to Tamil Nadu were ‘‘unimplementable’’ because of certain ‘‘ground realities.’’ Denying that there was any wilful disobedience of the court orders, Divan said the Karnataka chief minister cannot be faulted for believing that his priority in the face of ‘‘an explosive law and order situation’’ was to ‘‘cool down tempers.’’ But the bench said that ‘‘the plea of bandhs and agitations have unfortunately been raised by other Chief Ministers too to disregard court orders. We cannot accept it. It has to be deprecated in the strongest terms.’’ On Karnataka’s admission that no water had been released since September 18, the bench said: ‘‘You had water in your reservoirs. You could have released it. It was not a difficult order to implement. But you chose to sit at home and said we will not implement the court orders.’’ The bench disallowed Divan from casting any doubts about the court orders as the state never filed any application to review or to modify them. Turning to Salve, the bench said: ‘‘We dare say that the Union government has not covered itself with glory. It was their duty to see that our orders were complied with. They had sufficient powers to do so.’’ Pleading that the Centre had little jurisdiction in the dispute, the Solicitor General said: ‘‘There is no limitation to the Supreme Court’s power to formulate a mechanism to compel a state to comply with its orders. The majesty of the court as arbiter of federal disputes cannot be questioned.’’ Referring to Karnataka’s argument that the SC orders were unimplementable, the Solicitor General said: ‘‘A litigant cannot say that an order was wrong and hence I will not comply with it.’’ ‘‘Perhaps emotions are being deliberately aroused,’’ the bench said, to flout the court orders. ‘‘What the Chief Minister says is that if water is released, it will not be in the interest of my farmers, hence it is not my duty to uphold the majesty of law—what else is his stand?’’ Referring to the difficult water situation pleaded by Karnataka, the bench said: ‘‘Drought was all over India. Our problem is that, we do not know how to share. Everyone thinks only about himself and does not care about others—that unfortunately is the perception in India.’’ The bench asked: ‘‘For what purpose you (Chief Minister) had undertaken the padyatra? What was the unanimous resolution of political parties there? Don’t release water?’’ Referring to similar instances of intransigence such as Punjab’s refusal to complete the Sutlej-Yamuna canal, the bench said it was going deep into the issue as one after another, Chief Ministers were taking such a stand to violate court orders. ‘‘What happened to Article 144?’’ Under this Article, all authorities, civil and judicial, shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.
