Regardless of numerous attempts to resolve the problem, the two southern states of Karnataka and TN have always been at loggerheads when it comes to Cauvery River. Cauvery, which is locally known as Kaveri, is a large river that flows through the southern states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. It is important for both the states as people from Karnataka depend upon it to satisfy their drinking needs, whereas farmers from Cauvery delta in Tamil Nadu depend upon it for agriculture and livelihood. It is unfortunate that the Cauvery dispute is once again before the Supreme Court, barely weeks after the final verdict. The Centre is to blame for the dispute going into another round of litigation. While Tamil Nadu has moved the court to initiate contempt proceedings against the Centre for not complying with the direction to frame a scheme to implement the water-sharing arrangement set out in the February 16 judgment, the Centre has sought three more months and some clarifications in the court order. It is true that there is a discrepancy of opinion between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka on the proposed mechanism and its composition. While Tamil Nadu wants the ‘scheme’ envisaged by the court to mean nothing other than the Cauvery Management Board and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee, mentioned in the Tribunal’s final award, Karnataka says there is no reference to a ‘board’ in the apex court’s order, and that the Centre could frame a scheme different from that described by the Tribunal. It contends that the apex court envisaged a ‘dispute resolution body’, and not the ‘management board’ favoured by the Tribunal. Against this backdrop, the Centre could have exercised discretion and come up with a scheme that would include an inter-State body to oversee the water-sharing. At the latest hearing, the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, observed that the term ‘scheme’ mentioned in the judgment did not refer to only a ‘board'. It will be wise for all parties to remember that disputes are better resolved on the basis of equity and not prolonged on expedient considerations. The Centre’s actions should not amount to undermining the finality of the highest court’s judgment and should be unwaveringly in aid of its implementation.