On March 19th, the Supreme Court, presided over by Justices Oka and Bhuyan, addressed critical questions in Karnataka’s lawsuit over Cauvery water sharing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday(19th March),The Supreme Court, led by Justice Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, has outlined important questions for the original suit brought by the Karnataka government on sharing Cauvery river water with neighboring states.
The legal conundrum revolves around the original suit filed by the Karnataka government, which seeks a reevaluation of water sharing agreements with neighboring states, namely Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry.
Here are the crucial questions delineated by the Supreme Court:
- Whether the lawsuit is precluded by Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, in conjunction with Article 262(2) of the Constitution of India?
- Whether the lawsuit is barred by the doctrine of Res Judicata?
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to access, utilize, or control ‘Karnataka Cauvery Water’ as defined in paragraph 6(a) of the Plaint?
- Whether defendants 1 and 3 are precluded from accessing, utilizing, or controlling any water in the Cauvery basin beyond ‘Tamil Nadu Cauvery Water’ as defined in paragraph 6(b) of the Plaint?
- Whether the lawsuit is sustainable based on the delineation of River Cauvery waters into ‘Karnataka Cauvery Water’ and ‘Tamil Nadu Cauvery Water’?
- Whether the projects proposed by the first defendant detrimentally impact the rights and interests of the plaintiff-State?
- Whether the lawsuit is maintainable in the absence of a valid cause of action?
- What remedies, if any, should be granted?
ALSO READ: Pennar River Dispute | Supreme Court Directs Central Government to Establish Panel
The Court has allotted a six-week timeframe for the concerned parties to submit pertinent documents. The case has been scheduled for further hearing on May 7, wherein additional directives will be issued.
BACKGROUND
The Cauvery river, revered as ‘Ponni’ in Tamil Nadu, has been at the center of a longstanding dispute involving Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry, rooted in historical agreements from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This dispute escalated in 1974 when Karnataka initiated water diversion without Tamil Nadu’s consent, leading to the establishment of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) in 1990. After 17 years of deliberation, the CWDT issued its final order in 2007, allocating water among the riparian states based on the river’s total availability. In 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed the Cauvery’s status as a national asset and upheld the CWDT’s water-sharing arrangements, prompting the enactment of the ‘Cauvery Water Management Scheme’ by the central government to regulate water distribution in the basin through the ‘Cauvery Water Management Authority’ and the ‘Cauvery Water Regulation Committee.’
The Supreme Court addressing the dispute over the Cauvery river water. In 2016, tensions rose when Tamil Nadu sought court intervention after Karnataka said it couldn’t share more water due to a failed monsoon. This led to the Supreme Court’s order to create the Cauvery Management Board, aiming to fairly distribute and manage water resources.
The legal representatives from Karnataka, led by Senior Advocates Shyam Divan, Mohan V Katarki, and others, have presented their arguments, emphasizing the state’s water needs and rights.
Conversely, Tamil Nadu’s legal team, including Senior Additional Advocate General V Krishnamurthy and Senior Advocates G Umapathy and P Wilson.
Kerala and Puducherry’s involvement, represented by their legal teams, adds complexity to the Cauvery water dispute, reflecting the broad impact of the river on the region’s ecology and livelihoods.
CASE TITLE: State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
