By IANS,
Chennai : Facing flak from the opposition after Tamil Nadu agreed in the Supreme Court to refer the Mullaiperiyar dam row to a five member constitution bench, Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi Friday hoped the saying “justice delayed is justice denied” would not come true for his state.
“The state had approached the Supreme Court in December 1998. Eleven years later when all were expecting Tamil Nadu to get justice, the decision to refer the case to a constitution bench surely makes us wonder for how many more years one has to wait,” he said, according to a statement issued here.
The Supreme Court Nov 10 decided to refer the case to a bigger bench after Kerala raised constitutional issues and said the apex court’s 2006 judgement allowing raising the storage levels by six feet to 142 feet is not binding on it.
Soon after the 2006 judgement, the Kerala assembly passed a law which effectively nullified the apex court order.
Tamil Nadu had filed a case in the Supreme Court against the Kerala law, which the court has referred to a five member constitution bench. Kerala too had filed a case in the apex court seeking a review of the 2006 judgement.
Stressing it was not his practice to comment on court judgements nor is he like his Kerala counterparts to pass a law that nullifies court orders, Karunanidhi remarked that he has some doubts that needs to be raised and cleared.
“The Supreme Court had ordered raising of storage level in Mullaiperiyar dam from 136 ft to 142 ft on Feb 27, 2006. It is said an apex court judgement is supreme to all. What happened to that judgement?” he asked.
He wondered what would happen if all the states start enacting laws to negate a Supreme Court judgement if it goes against them.
Referring the apex court’s decision to refer the case to a constitution bench without any comment on the Kerala government’s law that nullified its earlier judgement, Karunanidhi wondered if this would not embolden other states to act on their own.
He said the Kerala government in its petition filed April 3, 2006 to review the judgement had not raised the constitutional issues that were raised now.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the case to a constitution bench also makes us wonder why such a decision is being taken,” he said.