The Supreme Court of India on Monday confirmed that it will consider a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government on August 13. The petition seeks a court order directing the neighbouring state of Karnataka to release the water share allotted to Tamil Nadu under the Cauvery River agreement.
Bench and procedural steps
A three‑judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noted the arguments presented by counsel for the Tamil Nadu government. After hearing the submissions, Chief Justice Kant announced that the matter would be listed for a full hearing on Thursday, August 13.
The Tamil Nadu administration, led by Chief Minister Joseph Vijay, approached the apex court on August 3, asserting that the state was not receiving its entitled volume of Cauvery water, especially in the context of deficient rainfall across its catchment areas.
Background of the dispute
The contention centers on the quantum of water that the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) allocated to Tamil Nadu and the actual volume released by Karnataka. On July 28, the CWRC directed Karnataka to discharge 3,500 cubic feet per second (cusecs) of Cauvery water for a period of 15 days, starting July 29. This directive was later affirmed by the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA), a body created by the Centre in 2018 to resolve water‑sharing disagreements among Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry.
Despite the CWRC and CWMA orders, the Tamil Nadu government reported that the flow measured at the Biligundlu gauging station between July 29 and August 2 ranged only between 158 and 550 cusecs, far short of the mandated 3,500 cusecs.
In a press release dated August 3, the Tamil Nadu government highlighted that the combined storage capacity of Karnataka’s reservoirs—Krishna River System (KRS), Kabini, Harangi and Hemavathy—stood at 77.537 TMC (thousand million cubic feet). The release argued that, given recent rains in the KRS and Kabini catchments, Karnataka should be able to release a proportionate volume of 26.954 TMC at Biligundlu.
The release further noted that the CWMA’s order allocating only 4.536 TMC to Tamil Nadu was “very less” in light of the available storage and the CWRC’s earlier directive. It characterised Karnataka’s performance as a failure to deliver its due share, citing the 26.954 TMC figure as the quantum that should have been realised.
Details of the current plea
Alongside the state government’s filing, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)—the main opposition party in Tamil Nadu—also submitted a petition to the Supreme Court. The party’s plea reiterated the demand that Karnataka honour the 2018 Supreme Court verdict and obey the CWMA’s orders.
Specifically, the DMK’s petition urged the court to direct Karnataka to immediately implement the CWRC’s July 28, 2026, order, as affirmed by the CWMA on July 30, 2026, by ensuring a flow of 3,500 cusecs per day at Biligundlu for a 15‑day period commencing from the date of the court’s order. The party also sought compensation for the shortfall that began on July 29, 2026.
Furthermore, the opposition plea demanded that Karnataka address an “accumulated backlog” of approximately 9.46 TMC due at Biligundlu as of July 26, 2026. The DMK asked that the state ensure releases amounting to about 7,000 cusecs per day over a 15‑day span to make good this deficit.
Both the government and the DMK petitions asked the CWMA to monitor daily releases from Karnataka’s reservoirs and the actual flows recorded at Biligundlu, and to submit compliance reports to the court.
The CWMA had previously upheld the CWRC’s recommendation of releasing 3,500 cusecs daily for 15 days, reinforcing the legal basis for the current petitions. The authority, constituted in 2018, includes representatives from the four riparian states—Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry—as well as a nominee of the Centre.
The upcoming hearing on August 13 will therefore examine whether Karnataka has complied with the CWRC and CWMA directives, assess the alleged shortfalls, and consider the court’s possible orders to enforce water release in line with the established allocations.
Stakeholders across the basin are watching the proceedings closely, as the Cauvery water dispute has historically impacted agriculture, drinking water supplies and inter‑state relations in South India. The Supreme Court’s decision could set a precedent for how water‑sharing agreements are enforced when actual releases fall short of prescribed volumes.
Be First to Comment