English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

SC reduces Cauvery water allocation to Tamil Nadu, Karnataka to get more because Bengaluru needs it

Published

9 years ago

on

SC reduces Cauvery water allocation to Tamil Nadu, Karnataka to get more because Bengaluru needs it

Court says agreements were not “political arrangements” but were based on public interest; decision valid for 15 years

The Supreme Court on Friday (February 16) ended the long-pending Cauvery river water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu by clearly demarcating the allocation of Cauvery water among Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala.

The bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava Roy, A M Khanwilkar reduced the allocation of water for Tamil Nadu by 14.75 trillion cusecs (tmcft). Tamil Nadu will now get 404.25 tmcft of Cauvery water instead of 419 tmcft allotted by 207 tribunal.

Karnataka will get an enhanced 14.75 tmcft of water which will now stand at 284.75 tmcft (including 4.75 tmcft for Bengaluru) as against the 2007 Cauvery River Water Disputes Tribunal award of 270 tmcft.  The court’s logic on this was that the state needs more for its industrial use and for the use of the cosmopolitan city of Bengaluru.

However, the bench kept allocation of waters to Kerala i.e. 30 tmcft and to Puducherry i.e. 7 tmcft unchanged as per the 2007 tribunal award.

The bench directed that Karnataka will release 177.25 tmcft of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu from its inter-state Biligundlu dam while justifying its decision for increased water allocation to Karnataka on account of drinking water requirement and groundwater for Bengaluru residents. The order on Cauvery water allocation will continue for next 15 years, the bench said.

The bench also allowed Tamil Nadu to draw an additional 10 tmcft of groundwater, from a total of 20 tmcft beneath the Cauvery basin.

Upholding the validity of 1892 and 1924 agreements on Cauvery river water allocation, the bench noted that these agreements were not “political arrangements” but were based on public interest. The bench observed: “The 1924 post-Mettur dam agreement expired in 1974. Now the principle of water allocation is based on “equitable apportionment” and not primacy.”

Adjudging inter-state rivers are national assets, the bench stated: “The Constitution gave equal status to all States. No one riparian State can claim full rights over it.”

During the hearing, the bench rejected the Centre’s argument that it was Parliament’s prerogative to finalise the water sharing scheme.

Welcoming the verdict, the Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah said: “This is good news for farmers in Cauvery basin and people of Karnataka.” Tamil Nadu’s AIADMK was careful in commenting on the decrease of allocation and said that it had to study the court’s order deeply before commenting.

Backgrounder

  • The dispute dates back to 1892 when an agreement was filed between the Madras Presidency and Mysore for arbitration but led to a fresh set of disputes. Later, attempts were renewed to arbitrate between the two states under the supervision of the Government of India and a second agreement was signed in 1924.
  • As Kerala and Puducherry also laid claim to a share of the Cauvery water after Independence, a Fact Finding Committee was set up in 1970 to resolve the situation on the ground. The committee submitted its report in 1972 and further studies were conducted by an expert committee. The states reached an agreement in 1976. However, after a new government came to power in Tamil Nadu, it refused to give its consent to the terms of the agreement.
  • Later, in 1986, the Tamil Nadu government appealed to the central government to constitute a tribunal for solving the issue under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. However, the tribunal was not set up until the Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter and ordered the central government to do so in 1990.
  • The Cauvery Waters Tribunal was constituted on June 2, 1990. After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced its final order in 2007, allocating 419 tmc ft of water to Tamil Nadu and 270 tmc ft to Karnataka. Kerala was given 30 tmc ft and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. The Tribunal had come to a conclusion that the total availability of water in the Cauvery basin stood at 740 tmc ft. However, both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka filed a review petition before the Tribunal.
  • In 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, as chairman of the Cauvery River Authority, directed the Karnataka government to release 9,000 cusecs of water daily. The Supreme Court slammed the state government as it failed to comply with the order. The government offered an unconditional apology and started the release of water, leading to widespread violent protests.
  • With the Karnataka government continuously failing to release the water to Tamil Nadu, Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa filed an interlocutory petition in the Supreme Court in August 2016, seeking release of water as per the guidelines of the Tribunal. Announcing its verdict in the case, the Supreme Court, on September 5, directed the Karnataka government to release 15,000 cusecs of water to its neighboring state for 10 days.
  • The Supreme Court modified its order and asked Karnataka to release 12,000 cusecs of water every day until September 20, 2016.
  • On September 20, 2017 while reserving its order  Cauvery river water-sharing dispute directed Centre to frame a scheme for the implementation of its orders on river water-sharing between these states and Puducherry after the judgement is pronounced.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Gandhi Parivar vs Sangh Parivar, Revanth Reddy’s remark sparks BJP attack

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks contrasting the Gandhi Parivar with the Sangh Parivar triggered a BJP response accusing Congress of prioritising the Gandhi family.

Published

3 hours ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks comparing the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar have triggered a political exchange, with the BJP hitting back at the Congress leader.

Speaking in Kerala on Friday, Mr Reddy described the contest over India’s future as a fight between the two “parivars”. He said the Gandhi family had made sacrifices for the country while accusing the Sangh Parivar of attempting to divide India on the basis of religion, caste, region and language.

What Revanth Reddy said

Mr Reddy cited Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi while speaking about what he described as sacrifices made by the Gandhi family.

He also referred to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi, saying they had given up positions, power and high office.

The Telangana Chief Minister said he had no remaining personal political ambitions and described his objective as working towards a Congress-led government at the Centre with Rahul Gandhi as Prime Minister.

Mr Reddy also appealed to people to stand with the Gandhi Parivar and oppose the Sangh Parivar. He described the latter as a threat to India’s democracy.

BJP hits back

The BJP responded to Mr Reddy’s remarks on Saturday.

BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said the Telangana Chief Minister’s comments amounted to an admission that Congress’s objective was to bring the Gandhi family back to power.

He also linked Mr Reddy’s remarks to the ongoing political debate around “vote chori”, the Election Commission, the Constitution and democracy, arguing that the Congress’s focus was instead on the Gandhi family.

The exchange adds to the political confrontation between the BJP and Congress, with Mr Reddy presenting the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar as opposing forces in India’s political future, while the BJP has interpreted his remarks as evidence of Congress’s focus on the Gandhi family.

Continue Reading

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

10 hours ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

23 hours ago

on

September 25, 2026

By

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com