K’taka de­fies SC, won’t re­lease Cau­very wa­ter Uran scare: Navy calls off ops, but city still on alert

WHAT NEXT? Set for face-off with SC over re­fusal to share wa­ter with Tamil Nadu

Hindustan Times ST (Mumbai) - HT Navi Mumbai Live - - FRONT PAGE - KS Dak­shina Murthy and He­manth CS let­[email protected]­dus­tan­times.com HT Cor­re­spon­dents let­[email protected]­dus­tan­times.com Soibam Rocky Singh [email protected]­dus­tan­times.com

Kar­nataka’s leg­is­la­ture on Fri­day re­fused to share Cau­very wa­ter with Tamil Nadu, po­ten­tially set­ting the state on a col­li­sion course with the Supreme Court days af­ter vi­o­lence rocked cap­i­tal Bengaluru over the sen­si­tive is­sue.

Both the leg­isla­tive coun­cil and lower house adopted sim­i­lar res­o­lu­tions say­ing that the river wa­ter will be used only for meet­ing drink­ing needs of vil­lages and towns in the Cau­very basin and Bengaluru.

The res­o­lu­tions, how­ever, did not men­tion the top court’s or­der di­rect­ing the state to re­lease 6,000 cusecs (cu­bic feet per sec­ond) to Tamil Nadu till Septem­ber 27.

The leg­is­la­ture’s de­ci­sion came nearly two weeks af­ter an ear­lier apex court or­der sparked large-scale vi­o­lence in state cap­i­tal Bengaluru where mobs tar­geted Tamil-speak­ing peo­ple and their prop­er­ties. Spo­radic vi­o­lence has con­tin­ued since then across the state, large parts of which are fac­ing wa­ter short­age.

For chief min­is­ter Sid­dara­ma­iah, who gave an im­pas­sioned speech in the assem­bly, a face-off with the ju­di­ciary could prove costly given past in­stances of the state’s at­tempts to take on the top court on the more than cen­tury-old dis­pute.

In 1991, then chief min­is­ter S Ban­garappa had tried to cir­cum­vent a Cau­very in­terim award through an or­di­nance. Later in 2002, another chief min­is­ter SM Kr­ishna too had re­fused to re­lease wa­ter to Tamil Nadu. The apex court struck down the or­di­nance and forced Kr­ishna, who was in dan­ger of be­ing hauled for con­tempt of court, to com­ply with its or­der.

What makes the sit­u­a­tion dif­fer­ent now is that the en­tire state leg­is­la­ture has unan­i­mously taken a stand against an apex court’s or­der, ex­perts pointed out.

Le­gal ex­perts quoted in var­i­ous news­pa­pers and tele­vi­sion chan­nels here have vary­ing ver­sions of what can hap­pen — from ty­ing the apex court’s hands in the mat­ter to out­right dis­missal of the gov­ern­ment and assem­bly.

Sid­dara­ma­iah, how­ever, in­sisted that the res­o­lu­tion was not a de­fi­ance of the Supreme Court. “We have great re­spect for the ju­di­ciary. The in­ten­tion is not to dis­obey the ju­di­cial or­der. We will not think of it even in our dreams,” he said dur­ing the assem­bly de­bate.

“Peo­ple have given us a man­date. We can­not defy it… it would be a dere­lic­tion of duty on our part.”

The rul­ing AIADMK in Tamil Nadu re­acted sharply, say­ing the is­sue was be­ing politi­cised by the Kar­nataka gov­ern­ment “be­cause they are go­ing to face elec­tions very soon”. “Cau­very be­longs to us as well, not only to Kar­nataka. The wa­ter has to come to Tamil Nadu,” ANI quoted AIADMK leader CR Saraswathi as say­ing. The Cau­very wa­ter is­sue led to protests across Ban­ga­lore last week in which sev­eral buses were burnt.

Search op­er­a­tions in and around Mum­bai and Uran con­tin­ued on Fri­day, a day af­ter two school­child­ren in Uran claimed to have seen armed men in the fish­ing town, spark­ing a se­cu­rity scare. The In­dian Navy of­fi­cially called off its search op­er­a­tions in the even­ing, while the po­lice and coast guard con­tin­ued their searches.

A se­nior home depart­ment of­fi­cial told Hin­dus­tan Times in the even­ing, “There has been no cor­rob­o­ra­tion [of the al­leged sight­ings] so far. The covert op­er­a­tions will con­tinue.”

More than a thou­sand po­lice­men searched ho­tels, homes and forests in and around Uran. The po­lice and state re­serve po­lice force scoured the town and its sur­round­ings but found no phys­i­cal ev­i­dence of any in­trud­ers. How­ever, Mum­bai con­tin­ued to be Se­cu­rity per­son­nel dur­ing the comb­ing op­er­a­tions in Uran on Fri­day. on high alert and heavy se­cu­rity re­mained in place at im­por­tant points along the coast. Mean­while, the school­girl who claimed to have seen the armed men stood by her state­ment on Fri­day.

What­sApp can­not share its old user data with Face­book or any other plat­form, the Delhi high court ruled on Fri­day while al­low­ing the pop­u­lar in­stant mes­sag­ing app to roll out a new pri­vacy pol­icy.

The court or­der came on a pe­ti­tion chal­leng­ing What­sApp’s an­nounce­ment in Au­gust that it would start shar­ing users’ ac­count in­for­ma­tion such as phone num­ber with par­ent com­pany Face­book, mark­ing a no­table shift in its pol­icy on pri­vacy.

The two Delhi-based pe­ti­tion­ers al­leged that What­sApp’s de­ci­sion com­pro­mises the rights of its users.

Hear­ing the pe­ti­tions, a bench headed by chief jus­tice G Ro­hini di­rected the mes­sag­ing ser­vice not to share any user data col­lected till Septem­ber 25, 2016, with Face­book or any other re­lated com­pany.

The mes­sag­ing app, which Face­book ac­quired in 2014, gave users a 30-day pe­riod to choose if they wanted to share in­for­ma­tion with the so­cial net­work or opt out be­fore the old pol­icy ex­pires on Septem­ber 25.

The What­sApp data will help Face­book push rel­e­vant ad­ver­tise­ments and make friend rec­om­men­da­tions. What­sApp, which has more than 1 bil­lion users world­wide, sought to re­as­sure peo­ple that it won’t share user in­for­ma­tion with ad­ver­tis­ers and doesn’t re­tain data on its servers once an ac­count is deleted, not many were con­vinced.


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.