By Anushree Jois
A decade after the final award was passed by the Cauvery Waters Dispute Tribunal (CWDT), the Supreme Court (SC) has delivered its verdict on the appeals filed by the contending states, namely Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and the union territory of Puducherry. It has made minor alterations in the proportion of water allocation while ruling that no single state can claim exclusive ownership of the river, as it constitutes a national asset.
Fight over a water resource
The Cauvery river is the primary source for irrigation and drinking across the states. With its origin in Karnataka, the river has remained a bone of contention, primarily between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for close to one and a half centuries now. When the states failed to reach a consensus, the CWDT was set-up in 1990 under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (the Act) to adjudicate on the disputes.
In 2007 CWDT passed its final award allocating 419 thousand million cubic feets (tmcft) of water annually to Tamil Nadu and 270 tmcft to Karnataka. Kerala and Puducherry were allocated 30 and 7 tmcft respectively. The states were dissatisfied with the award on different counts and approached the Apex Court, challenging the award of CWDT.
Timeline of the conflict
As early as 1892, the then Princely State of Mysore and the Madras Presidency of the British Raj had entered into an agreement on the mode of sharing the water. This was followed by another agreement in 1924 for a term of 50 years, entered into between the states at the intervention of the British. However, after the re-organisation of states that followed in 1956, there was a substantial change in the area and boundaries, while Kerala and Puducherry became new stakeholders to the river basin.
While disputes over the sharing continued, Karnataka started building dams in the 1960s to protect its interests, awaiting the expiry of the agreement of 1924. The states once again reached a consensus in 1976, which however subsequently fell apart. The SC directed that a Tribunal be formed to address the issues between the states and accordingly, CWDT came to be set up. In 1991, the Tribunal passed an interim order directing Karnataka to release 205 tmcft per year to Tamil Nadu, while directing the latter not to increase its irrigated land area.
In the meanwhile, efforts to negotiate were renewed at the behest of the then Prime Minister, but in vain. CWDT eventually passed its final award in 2007, which came to be notified by the Centre only in 2012. Despite the award, conflicts over the water sharing ratios continued, which particularly increased during years of scanty rainfall.
Dispute laid to rest
The Special Bench constituted for the purposes of looking into the appeals awarded marginal relief to Karnataka by increasing its allocation by 14.75 tmcft, reducing the allocation to Tamil Nadu to 404.25 tmcft. The Constitution Bench, on the other hand, permitted Tamil Nadu to draw an additional 10 tmcft from the total available 20 tmfct groundwater from the Cauvery basin. This should leave the States final allotment reduced by only 4 tmfct. There was no change in the allotment to the remaining states of Kerala and Puducherry.
With the above minor changes in the allotment, the SC affirmed that there was no necessity to interfere with the method of allocation arrived at by the Tribunal. The unanimous verdict of the apex court also observed that requirement of drinking water was placed at the top of the hierarchy of principle of equitable distribution.
Varied opinions
In its concluding remarks, the Court observed that in view of the acute scarcity of water resources and intensely contested claims, it expected the States to utilise the resource for the allocated purpose and not deviate for the next 15 years. The judgment has been received with mixed reactions. Karnataka is rejoicing in view of the additional allotment and particular focus given to Bengalurus needs of drinking water. Activists in Tamil Nadu, including associations of farmers, are disappointed with the reduction in allocation but have expressed that they accept and respect the decision of the apex court. On the other hand, many political leaders in Tamil Nadu have resorted to a political blame game over the verdict.
Balancing of interests
The landmark judgment of the SC has largely balanced interests of the contending states in view of the availability of resources and need for development. The judgment has also raised some eyebrows, by limiting the Centres power to frame a scheme under Section 6A of the Act to only implement the award of the Tribunal.
According to a recent news report in BBC, Bangalore has been named as the second city in the world that is likely to run out of drinking water owing to its property development, population inflow and water pollution. Accordingly, the additional concern shown by the court to Bengaluru while reworking the ratio of allocations can be said to be an extended lifeline for the city.
Featured Image Source: Pexels