Supreme Court: Refuses 70 TMC Cauvery Reallocation Plea

• The Supreme Court refused a fresh plea seeking to reallocate 70 TMC of Cauvery water from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka.
• Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta stated that entertaining petitions from societies in inter-state disputes would have no end.
• The decision comes amidst an ongoing Cauvery water dispute, with Karnataka claiming compliance with a CWMA directive to release 9,000 cusecs to Tamil Nadu.
• Tamil Nadu has consistently argued it is not receiving its due share, especially in a rain-deficient year, and highlighted a 9.46 TMC backlog as of July 26.
• The Court's refusal signals a preference for states to resolve disputes through existing legal channels and authorities rather than third-party interventions.

By emphasizing that such complex matters, already under active litigation between the concerned states, should not be complicated by additional petitions from societies, the Court reinforces its focus on judicial economy and the established channels for resolution.

The Supreme Court recently declined to entertain a new petition seeking the reallocation of 70 TMC of Cauvery river water from Tamil Nadu's share to Karnataka. The decision, handed down on a Tuesday by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, underscored the Court's reluctance to broaden the scope of the long-standing Cauvery water dispute between the two states. The justices observed that allowing petitions from third-party societies in an ongoing inter-state conflict, which is already being contested by the principal parties, would create an unending stream of litigation.

The specific plea sought various reliefs, prominently including the transfer of the 70 TMC volume of water. This refusal by the Supreme Court comes amidst heightened tensions and ongoing legal battles over the release and allocation of Cauvery water between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Karnataka had previously informed the Supreme Court that it had released an excess amount of water to Tamil Nadu as of August 31, asserting its compliance with the Cauvery Water Management Authority's (CWMA) directive to ensure a daily flow of 9,000 cusecs to its neighboring state.

The broader Cauvery water dispute, a complex issue of Karnataka Tamil Nadu water sharing, has a history stretching back to 1974 when Karnataka, as the upper riparian state, began diverting water without Tamil Nadu's consent. In the current phase of the dispute, the Supreme Court has been actively hearing Tamil Nadu's plea for immediate directions to Karnataka regarding water release. On August 17, the apex court had specifically instructed Karnataka to adhere to the CWMA's directives concerning water distribution to Tamil Nadu. Earlier, on August 25, the CWMA had affirmed a recommendation from the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC), mandating Karnataka to ensure a flow of 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu for a period of 15 days.

Tamil Nadu, however, has consistently argued that it is not receiving its rightful share, particularly in a year marked by deficient rainfall. The state had brought the issue of water backlog to the CWMA's attention, though no specific directive was issued in response to that particular concern. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) also approached the Supreme Court, urging Karnataka to release Cauvery water in accordance with recent CWMA directions, which had upheld a CWRC directive for a daily release of 3,500 cusecs to Tamil Nadu for 15 days. The DMK's application highlighted that the South-West Monsoon in the Cauvery basin has been deficient in the current water year, leading to flows at Biligundlu being only about 10% of the stipulated amount. According to their estimates, based on distress-sharing principles, Tamil Nadu faced a backlog of 9.46 TMC at Biligundlu as of July 26, requiring approximately 7,000 cusecs per day for 15 days to fulfill.

The Supreme Court's decision to refuse the 70 TMC Cauvery reallocation plea sends a clear message regarding the management of inter-state water disputes. By emphasizing that such complex matters, already under active litigation between the concerned states, should not be complicated by additional petitions from societies, the Court reinforces its focus on judicial economy and the established channels for resolution. This stance indicates a preference for the primary parties—the states themselves—to address their grievances through existing legal frameworks and regulatory bodies like the Cauvery Water Management Authority.

For legal professionals advising on inter-state water disputes, this ruling underscores the Supreme Court's clear stance against entertaining fresh pleas from third-party societies. It highlights that the Court intends to manage the primary dispute rather than expanding the scope of intervention, signaling that such matters are best resolved through existing litigation channels and established authorities. The Court's observation that entertaining such petitions would have 'no end' firmly establishes its position on limiting external interference in these highly sensitive and politically charged inter-state conflicts.

Lawyers advising on inter-state water disputes should note the Supreme Court's clear stance against entertaining fresh pleas from third-party societies, emphasizing that such complex matters between states must be resolved through existing litigation channels and established authorities. This indicates the Court's focus on judicial economy and managing the primary dispute rather than expanding the scope of intervention.

Source: Original reporting via LiveLaw