State's sovereign rights over river waters

Do the states have sovereign rights over the river waters within their
respective territories? Even though the Punjab chief minister has
claimed that it is within the sovereign rights of the state to regulate
the use of its river waters, riparian states do not have untrammeled
rights over their waters.
Of course, Amerinder Singh can cite the doctrine of territorial
sovereignty evolved by the US attorney general Judson Harmon in 1896 to
justify the US action in reducing the flow of the river Rio Grande into
Mexico. However, this doctrine has been rejected by international
community in favour of the doctrine of equitable apportionment of water.

But don't the states have full freedom
to legislate on the use of water?
True , under the Constitution states have the power to legislate on
"Water, that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage
and embankments, water storage and water power" (State List, entry 17).
But this power is not an absolute power; it is "subjected to the
provisions of th Entry 56 of List 1". Entry 56 of the Union list places
the 'regulation and development of inter-state rivers and river valley,
to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control
of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the
public interest' within the legislative competence of the Centre.

Shouldn't water be place in the
Concurrent List to avoid any inter-state dispute on the use of it?

Every time there is a fresh controversy regarding the sharing of river
water, the question of including water in Concurrent List comes up. But
there is no need to amend the Constitution as the Centre is already
empowered to adjudicate disputes relating to waters of inter-state
rivers of river valley. Article 262 of the Constitution stipulates:
"Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or
complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters
of any inter-state river or river valley". More importantly, "Parliament
may, by law, provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court
shall exercise jurisdiction in respect to any dispute or complaint".

Has the Centre made use of these powers
conferred on it by the Constitution?
In exercise of the power conferred by article 262, Parliament has
enacted the Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956.
Under the Act, the Centre may refer to a Tribunal any water dispute
between two states. The Tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two
other members nominated by the Chief Justice of India from among persons
who at the time of such nominations are judges of the Supreme Court or
of a high court.
The Tribunal is supposed to investigate the matter referred to it and
forward a report to the Centre giving its decision. The normal duration
of the Tribunal is for three years, though the Centre may extend its
term. Once the Tribunal gives its finding, the Centre is to publish the
same in the gazette and decision of the Tribunal shall be final and
binding on the parties. More importantly, the Tribunal's order will have
the same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court.

Has any Tribunal been constituted under
this Act?
So far the Centre has constituted four such Tribunals under the
Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. The Krishna Water Disputes
Tribunal, the Narmada Tribunal and the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal
were set up in 1969. The Ravi Beas Tribunal was constituted under an
amended Water Disputes Act (the amendment explained the term 'Punjab
Settlement') in 1987. [MyNote: Only four? what the hell happened to
Cauvery Tribunal?]
All these Tribunal followed the principle of equitable apportionment of
water. The Krishna Water Tribunal held that not state has proprietary
interest in a particular volume of the water of an inter-state river on
the basis of its contribution or irrigatable area.
The Narmada Tribunal held that the diversion of water of an inter-state
river outside the river basin is legal. And the Ravi Beas Tribunal while
upholding the legality and validity of prior water sharing agreements,
rejected the doctrine of riparian rights and theory of ownership rights.
An important ruling of the Krishna Water Tribunal is that if there is a
central law on the subject of sharing of waters, that law will be
binding on all states who are party to the dispute.

ET in Classroom, The Economic Times

U.S. COMPANY TO SELL NASA TECHNOLOGY TO PLA

The private American company Bigelow Aerospace is attracting the
attention of China Great Wall Industries, after it commenced development
of a NASA-designed inflatable space station, reports Aviation Week and
Space Technology. China Great Wall managers "sounded out the company on
the possible launch of Bigelow test or operational modules on Long March
boosters or the in-orbit support of Nautilus by Shenzhou Chinese manned
spacecraft." Robert T. Bigelow, President and Founder of the company,
believes "there's an opportunity for America in cooperating with the
Chinese space program" and he disagrees with what he perceives as the
current negative U.S. policy toward such cooperation.

Bigelow, however, may be unaware that U.S. Commerce Department
documents indicate that China Great Wall Industries is owned by China
Electronics System Engineering Company, a subsidiary of the PLA, reports
Charles Smith in NewsMax.com. The U.S. has sanctioned Great Wall
Industries on two separate occasions for selling advanced nuclear-tipped
missile technology to Pakistan.

Richard Fischer, Vice-President of the International Assessment and
Strategy Center, stated that, "the U.S. government has an obligation to
judge? whether the new inflatable space habitat technology could better
enable that [Chinese] regime to pose greater security threats to the
United States."

MSEB - Setting the standard

COME September, the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) may have
to shell out compensation to harried consumers for voltage fluctuations.
It will have to pay Rs 100 every week to a person who has been denied a
new power connection after a month of application.

Sounds like a dream? Well, the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory
Commission (MERC) is finalising a draft on performance standards for
distribution licensees, i.e. MSEB and private power utilities. Besides
the performance levels and compensation, MERC will also put in place
regulations for electricity supply.

Jayant Deo, senior member of the MERC, said people may send their
suggestions before September 6 to www.mercindia.com.

The draft proposes that power supply should be restored within four
hours in case a normal fuse goes off. Similarly, the power utility
should restore power within 24 hours in case of a distribution
transformer failure in big towns and cities. Even when supply is snapped
due to breakdown of overhead transmission lines of 11kv, 22 kv or 450
kv, power has to be back in six hours maximum in cities like Mumbai and
Pune.

Interestingly, Deo said the draft has proposed that under no condition
should scheduled outages exceed 12 hours a day.

In its draft for performance standards, it has said that a power company
must restore power supply within 24 hours after a person complains of a
burnt meter.

The draft for electricity supply suggests that the power company display
at each office where applications have been accepted, the date up to
which the applications have been cleared. The power company will also
have to give reasons for delay in processing the application.

As for inspection of consumer premises, the draft says an authorised
representative of the power company should carry the job sheet or work
order which should be displayed to the consumer. If the company has
reasons to suspect an offence or mischief on part of the consumer, the
authorised representative should have an order issued by at least an
Assistant Engineer. And the reasons for suspicion should be recorded in
writing.

Similarly, the draft proposes that a connection may be transferred in
the name of another person on the death of the consumer. In case of
transfer of ownership or occupancy of the premises, the connection
should be changed in the name of new applicant, owner or occupier.

The New IndianExpress

DTH - Coming home with more channels.

To make direct-to-home television an up-market replacement for cable TV
and more consumer friendly, the government is contemplating a new rule
that will ensure each "platform" carries all possible channels. In
effect, it could facilitate say, Zee's platform carrying Star's
channels and vice-versa, whatever the rivalry, if any, between media
houses. What it will do is ensure that viewers get a good deal. Once the
government decides, viewers will be in a better position in terms of
channel availability. It could also make DTH more acceptable among
television viewers, especially in the upper-end of the cable market.
After years of indecision, the government wants DTH to be a strong
market-force as a counter to cable. The previous NDA government, in
fact, realised that once DTH was available it would be a partial counter
to the trouble over conditional access on cable television. All a
consumer needs is a Ku-band dish and a set-top box to directly get the
signal from the satellite transponder, bypassing the cable operator.
While more expensive, it provides far clearer pictures and in future,
other programming.

The Statesman

Child's Babble and Thamizh Language

When I was watching a documentary on discovery channel yesterday -
titled "Baby it's you" - for a moment I thought that baby is speaking
Thamizh. Actually it was babbling at the picture of herself on the TV.
This has led me to the hypothesis that there is a relationship between
the evolution of Thamizh language and the baby's babbling. It should be
noted that the baby is an European born to an European parent. Recently
I came across a paper - to be published in august issue of "Behavioral
and Brain Sciences" - by Dr. Dean Falk of Florida State University,
attributing the evolution of language to the mother-infant gestural and
vocal interactions.