Tamil Nadu says Karnataka still owes it around 16 to 20 TMC of Cauvery water for this irrigation year, and wants the Supreme Court to direct its release. Karnataka, pleading a drought-like situation, says it has already released more than the water regulator required. The Court sought Karnataka’s response within a week and indicated that the deficit issue should, in the first place, be decided by the Cauvery Water Management Authority.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has sought the response of Karnataka to Tamil Nadu’s application seeking directions for the release of water to make good the alleged shortfall in Karnataka’s supply of Cauvery water to the neighbouring State [State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka].
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi directed the respondents to file their response within a week and posted the matter for hearing in October.
Tamil Nadu’s case
Tamil Nadu has claimed that Karnataka owes it around 16 TMC of water as a shortfall during the current irrigation year, and, in its application, has sought directions for the release of the deficit water on a pro-rata basis. Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan submitted that the shortfall was not being made good and that the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) had not passed any order specifically addressing the deficit. “My shortfall is not being made good. CWMA is not passing any order in regard to that,” he submitted.
When the Bench sought clarification on the quantum, Vaidyanathan said Tamil Nadu assessed the deficit at around 20 TMC while Karnataka’s assessment was around 16 TMC, and that, despite Tamil Nadu raising the issue before the CWMA, the Authority had not addressed the deficit and had instead been issuing directions for the release of smaller quantities.
Karnataka’s response
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for Karnataka, opposed the plea, submitting that the State had released water in excess of the quantities directed by the CWMA despite facing a drought-like situation. “This is a drought situation. CWMA is an expert body. It knows exactly what’s happening,” he submitted, contending that the issue ought to be dealt with by the statutory authority rather than by the Supreme Court.
Divan submitted that the CWMA had, in dealing with the situation, considered the historical position of Karnataka’s reservoirs, the declining trend in inflows and the rainfall forecast, and pointed out that the monsoon was retreating, with Karnataka having little expectation of rainfall from the northeast monsoon while Tamil Nadu would have its advantage.
The Court’s view
Justice Mehta observed that the parties’ right to have their grievances considered by the CWMA could not be denied. “They have raised a deficit issue. CWMA take a call on that,” the Court observed. It ultimately directed Karnataka to file its response to Tamil Nadu’s application within a week and listed the matter in October.
Tamil Nadu had earlier approached the Supreme Court seeking enforcement of the CWMA’s direction requiring Karnataka to ensure a release of 6,000 cusecs daily from September 9 to September 23, besides seeking directions to make good the water shortfall accumulated during the preceding period.
Why it matters
The application is the latest turn in the long-running Cauvery dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, and reflects the architecture the Supreme Court and the Cauvery scheme have put in place for resolving year-to-year disputes over releases. Following the Court’s 2018 judgment and the framing of the Cauvery Water Management Scheme, the Cauvery Water Management Authority is the expert statutory body charged with regulating and supervising the sharing of water and issuing directions on releases; the recurring question, whenever a monsoon falls short, is how a claimed shortfall in one State’s entitlement is to be assessed and made good.
The Court’s response, seeking Karnataka’s reply while observing that the CWMA should take a call on the deficit, illustrates the division of labour between the Court and the Authority. The CWMA is intended to be the first forum for such operational disputes, applying its expertise to reservoir levels, inflows and forecasts; the Court’s role is ordinarily supervisory, ensuring that the Authority addresses the grievances placed before it and that its directions are complied with, rather than itself fixing quantities of water in the first instance. Tamil Nadu’s complaint that the CWMA has not specifically addressed its deficit, and Karnataka’s insistence that the expert body is best placed to decide, frame that jurisdictional question.
Nothing has been decided. The Court has only sought Karnataka’s response and left the deficit issue to be considered, with the matter listed for October. The competing assessments of the shortfall, around 20 TMC on Tamil Nadu’s reckoning and around 16 TMC on Karnataka’s, and the impact of the drought-like conditions Karnataka has pleaded, are yet to be evaluated; this report expresses no view on the merits of either State’s claim, which turn on hydrological facts for the Authority and the Court to weigh.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka [MA 2445/2026 in C.A. No. 2453/2007]
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Supreme Court of India
Appearances: Senior Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan for Tamil Nadu; Senior Advocate Shyam Divan for Karnataka.
Status: Karnataka directed to respond within a week to Tamil Nadu’s application for release of the alleged shortfall; Court observed the CWMA should decide the deficit issue. Listed for October. No view on merits.