Union government returns Karnataka's request for wildlife clearance for Mahadayi basin projects, calling it sub-judice

Hindustan TimesIndependentProgressive4 hr. ago

Representatives of various farmers' organizations in Tamil Nadu have urged Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay to reject an invitation from Karnataka's Chief Minister to hold bilateral talks regarding the construction of a dam in Mekedatu and other river water disputes. The farmers argue that direct talks between state chief ministers are legally invalid due to Supreme Court orders and the established role of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA). Tamil Nadu Agriculture Minister Vinoth initially supported the trip but later advised reporters to wait for official announcements. Farmers fear that direct negotiations could lead to unrest, citing past conflicts. They insist that all water-sharing discussions must go through the CWMA, which operates under Supreme Court oversight.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the farmers' concerns as a legal and constitutional issue, emphasizing the illegality of direct talks between chief ministers and highlighting the authority of the Cauvery Water Management Authority. The emphasis on legal invalidity and the call for adherence to judicial oversight

The HinduIndependentCenter2 days ago

The Indian Union government has returned Karnataka's request for wildlife clearance for the Kalasa-Bhanduri drinking water project in the Mahadayi river basin, stating the issue is currently sub-judice due to ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court. Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav informed Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar that the matter requires reconsideration based on future Supreme Court directives. The decision follows Karnataka's challenge to an earlier order by Goa's Chief Wildlife Warden, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Karnataka's legal representative, Mohan Katarki, expressed surprise at the Union government's acknowledgment of Goa's order, arguing it conflicts with existing tribunal rulings and exceeds Goa's jurisdiction under the Wildlife Protection Act.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the situation objectively, citing both the Union government's stance and Karnataka's legal response. It does not exhibit overt bias toward either side, providing quotes from both parties involved and explaining the legal context without editorializing.