Supreme Court Declines Immediate Order on Tamil Nadu’s Cauvery Water Release Plea
In a significant move concerning the longstanding water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the Supreme Court has chosen not to issue any immediate directive on Tamil Nadu’s plea. The southern state had appealed for the release of 24,000 cusecs of Cauvery water on a daily basis by Karnataka, emphasizing the need to support its standing crops.
This decision was taken by a three-judge bench of the apex court, spearheaded by Justice BR Gavai. Recognizing the intricacies and technicalities associated with water management, the court has sought a comprehensive report from the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA). This report is expected to shed light on the exact volume of water that has been released by Karnataka up to this point.
The court’s request for a detailed report from the CWMA came after Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati provided insights into the upcoming activities of the authority. She informed the bench that a pivotal meeting of the CWMA is slated for Monday. Addressing the complexities of the issue, the bench remarked,
“We do not possess any expertise on the matter. The ASG informs that authority is meeting on Monday to decide the discharge of water for the next fortnight. We find that it will be appropriate that CWMA submits its report on whether the directions issued for discharge of water have been complied or not.”
This bench, apart from Justice Gavai, also comprised of Justices PS Narasimha and PK Mishra.
Karnataka’s stance on this issue has been firm and unyielding. The state government has labeled Tamil Nadu’s plea as “wholly misconceived.” Delving deeper into their argument, Karnataka presented an affidavit to the top court. In this document, they underscored a critical point, suggesting that Tamil Nadu’s request is rooted in a flawed understanding of the current water situation. They emphasized that Tamil Nadu is operating under the mistaken belief that
“the current water year is a normal water year and not a distressed water year.”
The Cauvery water dispute, with its deep historical and regional roots, continues to be a focal point of contention between the two states. As stakeholders and citizens await the outcomes of the forthcoming CWMA meeting, it’s evident that any decision taken will have profound implications for both states and their agricultural communities.
