1 vinpinap
Home State Karnataka Supreme Court On Cauvery Dispute: Apex Court Upholds CWMA’s Directive 0n Cauvery Water Release: A Detailed Overview

Supreme Court On Cauvery Dispute: Apex Court Upholds CWMA’s Directive 0n Cauvery Water Release: A Detailed Overview

0
Supreme Court On Cauvery Dispute: Apex Court Upholds CWMA’s Directive 0n Cauvery Water Release: A Detailed Overview
Representative Image

New Delhi,20 September(City Times): Supreme Court On Cauvery Dispute : The Supreme Court’s recent decision not to interfere with the Cauvery Water Management Authority’s (CWMA) directive has brought the long-standing Cauvery water dispute back into the spotlight. This complex and contentious issue, which has simmered for decades, revolves around the sharing of the Cauvery river’s waters between two Indian states, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The legal battle surrounding this dispute has seen several twists and turns, with the recent development focusing on the release of 5000 cusecs of water from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu. In this detailed overview, we delve into the key aspects of the dispute, the recent legal battles, and the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Cauvery Water Management Authority’s Directive

One of the central points of contention in the Cauvery water dispute has been the allocation of water between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The CWMA’s directive, which is at the heart of the recent legal battle, ordered the State of Karnataka to release 5000 cusecs of water at Biligundlu for a specific period, spanning from September 13th to 27th. This directive, which the CWMA affirmed, raised questions and concerns on both sides of the dispute.

The Supreme Court’s Stance On Cauvery Water: Non-Interference

In response to the CWMA’s directive, a bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justice BR Gavai, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, chose not to intervene. The judges expressed confidence in the expertise of the CWMA and the Cauvery Water Regulatory Committee (CWRC), highlighting that these committees comprise professionals well-versed in water resource management and agriculture. They also pointed out that the CWRC had considered multiple factors in its decision-making process, including the dire condition in the Cauvery basin over the past 15 days.

Six Major Points on Supreme Court Directive On Cauvery Dispute

  • 1: The Supreme Court’s recent decision not to interfere upholds the CWMA’s directive for Karnataka to release 5000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu.
  • 2: Tamil Nadu’s argument that it is eligible for 7200 cusecs but received only 5000 cusecs due to the distressing year underscores the impact on the state’s agriculture.
  • 3: Karnataka, despite its opposition, is complying with the CWMA’s order, citing challenges in benefiting from the North East Monsoons.
  • 4: The Cauvery water dispute, originating in 1974, has a complex history involving the CWDT and the Supreme Court.
  • 5: In 2018, the Supreme Court issued a significant directive, emphasizing the intricacy of the case.
  • 6: The Supreme Court’s request for a CWMA report signifies ongoing scrutiny of the situation, ensuring transparency in the decision-making process.

Tamil Nadu’s Perspective On Cauvery Water: Reduced Allocation

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Tamil Nadu, argued that while both the CWMA and CWRC acknowledged the state’s eligibility for 7200 cusecs of water, this allocation had been reduced to 5000 cusecs due to the distressing circumstances of the year. Rohatgi emphasized that Tamil Nadu is primarily an agrarian state, and the reduction in water allocation significantly affects its agriculture sector. He asserted that in a regular year, Tamil Nadu would have been eligible for three times more water.

Karnataka’s Response: Compliance Despite Challenges

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing Karnataka, acknowledged that the CWMA’s order was not in the state’s best interest, but Karnataka was nonetheless complying with it. He noted that Karnataka faces challenges, particularly in benefiting from the North East Monsoons. Divan pointed out that Karnataka’s reduced water allocation could be attributed to the conflicting claims between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Tamil Nadu sought 7200 cusecs, while Karnataka maintained that it could only provide 2000 cusecs.

Here is a table summarizing the key events in the Cauvery River water dispute:

YearEvent Description
1892Dispute begins between Madras Presidency and Mysore.
1913-1916Mysore seeks permission to build a reservoir.
1924Agreement reached allowing the construction of dams.
1929Agreement to clarify water release terms.
1974Expiration of the 1924 water sharing agreement.
1986Tamil Nadu requests a tribunal for dispute resolution.
June 2, 1990Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) formed.
June 25, 1991CWDT issues interim award for water release.
Dec 11, 1991Interim award upheld by Supreme Court.
Aug 1998Cauvery River Authority (CRA) formed to implement award.
Sep 2002CRA directs Karnataka to release water to Tamil Nadu.
Feb 5, 2007CWDT issues the final award for water allocation.
Feb 19, 2013Final award notified by the center.
Mar 19, 2013Tamil Nadu moves SC for Cauvery Management Board.
May 28, 2013Tamil Nadu seeks damages from Karnataka.
June 26, 2013Tamil Nadu moves SC for Cauvery Management Board.
Aug 22, 2016Tamil Nadu seeks SC direction for water release.
Sep 6, 2016SC directs Karnataka to release water.
Sep 12, 2016SC modifies water release direction.
Sep 20, 2017Verdict reserved in the Cauvery water dispute.
This table provides a chronological overview of significant events in the Cauvery River water dispute.

The Supreme Court’s Rationale: No Interference

The Supreme Court’s decision not to interfere with the CWMA’s directive was rooted in its recognition of the ongoing disputes and rival claims between the two states. Justice Gavai emphasized that the CWMA and CWRC continuously monitor and review the situation every 15 days, providing reasoned justifications for their decisions. The Court’s decision, therefore, reflected its trust in these expert bodies’ assessments.

A Historical Perspective: The Cauvery Water Dispute

The Cauvery water dispute dates back to 1974 when Karnataka, as the upper riparian state, initiated the diversion of water without Tamil Nadu’s consent. This act sparked a prolonged and contentious legal battle, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court. The involvement of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) in 2007 marked a significant development in the dispute’s history.

The recent legal battles in the Cauvery water dispute commenced when Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court on August 14, 2023. The state sought the Court’s intervention in compelling Karnataka to promptly release 24,000 cubic feet per second (cusecs) of water from its reservoirs. Tamil Nadu’s objective was to secure this specific volume of water at Biligundlu on the interstate border for the remaining part of the current month. The plea also included a request for the Court to instruct Karnataka to ensure the release of the designated 36.76 TMC (thousand million cubic feet) of water, as outlined for September 2023 in accordance with the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT)’s final decision from February 2007.

Challenges Faced by Karnataka: Low Rainfall

Karnataka’s opposition to Tamil Nadu’s demands stemmed from its assertion of low rainfall, which it claimed affected its water reserves. This argument added another layer of complexity to the dispute and set the stage for further legal proceedings.

The Court’s Quest for Information: Seeking the CWMA Report

On August 25, 2023, the Supreme Court sought a report from the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA). This move aimed to gain further insights into the situation, reflecting the Court’s commitment to thorough examination and transparency in the decision-making process.

Supreme Court’s 2018 Directive: A Significant Turning Point

In 2018, the Supreme Court issued a significant directive in the Cauvery water dispute, further highlighting the intricacy of the case. A three-judge bench of the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar directed the State of Karnataka to release 177.25 TMC of water, a reduced allocation compared to the originally stipulated 192 TMC, to the State of Tamil Nadu. This directive added to the historical evolution of the dispute.

The Path Ahead: Complex and Uncertain

As the legal battle continues, the Cauvery water dispute remains a complex and uncertain issue. It involves the delicate balance of water allocation between two states with divergent needs and interests. The Supreme Court’s decision not to interfere in the CWMA’s directive underscores the importance of ongoing monitoring and reasoned decision-making by expert bodies in resolving such disputes.

Conclusion: A Complex Saga Continues

The Cauvery water dispute exemplifies the challenges and complexities inherent in water-sharing issues between states. With agriculture, livelihoods, and ecological balance at stake, it remains a contentious matter that demands careful consideration and a balanced approach. While the recent Supreme Court decision maintains the status quo, the dispute’s resolution remains a critical concern for all stakeholders involved.

You May Like This News: Cauvery Water Dispute: Karnataka Responds to Tamil Nadu’s Plea in Supreme Court

You May Like This Hindi News:

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here