The Sup-reme Court on Friday praised the stand taken by senior advocate Fali S Nariman that he would not make any submission on behalf of Karnataka during the hearing of the matter relating to sharing of the Cauvery river water as the state had failed to comply with the apex courts direction.
Nariman, who has led the legal team of the state, cited his letter to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in which he said that he would not be able to make any submission. "We must honour the order of the court," he has maintained. The court on September 27 had directed Karnataka to release 6,000 cusecs of water daily to Tamil Nadu for three days.
"We must appreciate the stand taken by Nariman. We must unhesitatingly state this behoves the officer of the court (all lawyers are treated as such) in the highest tradition of the Bar," the bench of Justices Dipak Misra and UULalit said.
Sources in the state's legal team, however, maintained that Nariman would continue to represent Karnataka in the case. The court took into record the letter sent by Nariman to the chief minister on Friday in response to his communication of September 29 in which Siddaramaiah said that his government was not in a position to release water at this juncture.
Nariman has told Siddaramaiah: "You must realise that all of us appearing for the state are officers of the court and since the court has issued a direction for release of water 'despite the Resolution passed', we must honour the order of the court. I must therefore inform you that apart from reading your letter and my reply, we will not be able to make any submission on behalf of the state to the court."![]( "Nariman, who has led the legal team of the state, cited his letter to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in which he said that he would not be able to make any submission. PTI File photo.")
The Sup-reme Court on Friday praised the stand taken by senior advocate Fali S Nariman that he would not make any submission on behalf of Karnataka during the hearing of the matter relating to sharing of the Cauvery river water as the state had failed to comply with the apex court's direction.
Nariman, who has led the legal team of the state, cited his letter to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in which he said that he would not be able to make any submission. "We must honour the order of the court,” he has maintained. The court on September 27 had directed Karnataka to release 6,000 cusecs of water daily to Tamil Nadu for three days.
"We must appreciate the stand taken by Nariman. We must unhesitatingly state this behoves the officer of the court (all lawyers are treated as such) in the highest tradition of the Bar,” the bench of Justices Dipak Misra and U U Lalit said.
Sources in the state’s legal team, however, maintained that Nariman would continue to represent Karnataka in the case. The court took into record the letter sent by Nariman to the chief minister on Friday in response to his communication of September 29 in which Siddaramaiah said that his government was not in a position to release water at this juncture.
Nariman has told Siddaramaiah: "You must realise that all of us appearing for the state are officers of the court and since the court has issued a direction for release of water 'despite the Resolution passed’, we must honour the order of the court. I must therefore inform you that apart from reading your letter and my reply, we will not be able to make any submission on behalf of the state to the court.”
Nariman, who has led the legal team of the state, cited his letter to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in which he said that he would not be able to make any submission. "We must honour the order of the court," he has maintained. The court on September 27 had directed Karnataka to release 6,000 cusecs of water daily to Tamil Nadu for three days.
"We must appreciate the stand taken by Nariman. We must unhesitatingly state this behoves the officer of the court (all lawyers are treated as such) in the highest tradition of the Bar," the bench of Justices Dipak Misra and UULalit said.
Sources in the state's legal team, however, maintained that Nariman would continue to represent Karnataka in the case. The court took into record the letter sent by Nariman to the chief minister on Friday in response to his communication of September 29 in which Siddaramaiah said that his government was not in a position to release water at this juncture.
Nariman has told Siddaramaiah: "You must realise that all of us appearing for the state are officers of the court and since the court has issued a direction for release of water 'despite the Resolution passed', we must honour the order of the court. I must therefore inform you that apart from reading your letter and my reply, we will not be able to make any submission on behalf of the state to the court."
The Sup-reme Court on Friday praised the stand taken by senior advocate Fali S Nariman that he would not make any submission on behalf of Karnataka during the hearing of the matter relating to sharing of the Cauvery river water as the state had failed to comply with the apex court's direction.Nariman, who has led the legal team of the state, cited his letter to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in which he said that he would not be able to make any submission. "We must honour the order of the court,” he has maintained. The court on September 27 had directed Karnataka to release 6,000 cusecs of water daily to Tamil Nadu for three days.
"We must appreciate the stand taken by Nariman. We must unhesitatingly state this behoves the officer of the court (all lawyers are treated as such) in the highest tradition of the Bar,” the bench of Justices Dipak Misra and U U Lalit said.
Sources in the state’s legal team, however, maintained that Nariman would continue to represent Karnataka in the case. The court took into record the letter sent by Nariman to the chief minister on Friday in response to his communication of September 29 in which Siddaramaiah said that his government was not in a position to release water at this juncture.
Nariman has told Siddaramaiah: "You must realise that all of us appearing for the state are officers of the court and since the court has issued a direction for release of water 'despite the Resolution passed’, we must honour the order of the court. I must therefore inform you that apart from reading your letter and my reply, we will not be able to make any submission on behalf of the state to the court.”