With CM Vijay’s TVK-led coalition firmly in place, the initial wave of opposition MLAs crossing over to the ruling side seems nearly complete. However, their precise legal status remains a grey area. Since individual defections invite automatic disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, what is the exact constitutional fate of these turncoat legislators? Are they legally vulnerable until the Speaker officially rules on their status, or can they exploit the same "deemed merger" loophole we are currently seeing in the Lok Sabha, where massive rebel blocs from parties like the TMC are claiming immunity by hitting the two-thirds legislative mark? How long can this technical ambiguity protect their seats?
— Prof Dhanabalan, Tiruchy
Notwithstanding the Tenth Schedule prescribed under Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution attempting to ban defection of elected legislators, it is continuing in different forms. While individual defections are effectively stopped, the new dimensions of two-thirds of the legislative party getting merged as had happened in Punjab and Bengal, show of getting merged with an unknown political party and starting to support the ruling party at the Centre are new areas where the Tenth Schedule can do nothing.
It is high time the Constitution is amended to stop this trend by making a new provision by which the legislative group cannot jump sides without the approval of the main political party. In effect, the key should vest with the party and not with the legislative group.
The Mekedatu dam dispute is back in the news with the new government planning fresh legal action against Karnataka's reservoir project. For ordinary people and farmers who rely on the Cauvery, the legalities are confusing. Since the Supreme Court gave its final verdict on water sharing a few years ago, can Karnataka legally go ahead with a new project without Tamil Nadu's consent? Does our state government have the power to stop it, or are we entirely dependent on the Centre and the courts? What real legal remedies do we have left to protect our water rights ?
— Soundaraj, Thanjai
Though Dr Ambedkar demanded the nationalisation of rivers, the same was not accepted.
However, for an interstate water dispute, the power to resolve vests with a Tribunal constituted by Parliament under Article 262 of the Constitution. The law for water sharing is that the sole enjoyment of the water does not vest with the state of river origin, but the riparian states through which it passes will also have a stake in it.
In going through with a dam across Mekedatu, the Karnataka state cannot have the final say. Even before an interstate water tribunal is constituted, the project requires several clearances from different authorities. That is why the Tamil Nadu demand for a tribunal at this stage is premature and not warranted.