The Cauvery water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu has a long history dating back to the late 19th century. Several agreements were made between 1892-1924 to allocate Cauvery water between the administrations of Madras and Mysore. Post-independence, conflicts increased as Karnataka built dams and irrigation projects. The dispute was referred to the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in 1990 which issued interim orders in 1991 and a final order in 2007. However, both states remain unsatisfied and have challenged orders in the Supreme Court. The long-running dispute highlights the failure of institutions to resolve conflicts over sharing of inter-state river waters on a permanent basis.
3. Historical Background- Pre Independence
1881- The dispute began between the Madras Presidency and the princely state of
Mysore.
1890- conference was held with the objective of agreeing on the principles of a “modus
vivendi”
1892- The first agreement was signed between Mysore State and Madras Presidency on
February 18, 1892
As per Rules known as “Rules defining the limits within which no new irrigation works are to be
constructed by the Mysore State without previous reference to the Madras Government”
Karnataka was to have previous consent from Tamil Nadu in respect of any construction
Prior to any such project is executed, full information regarding the same had to be furnished to
Tamil Nadu for the purpose of consent.
4. 1910- Conceptualizing the idea of constructing reservoirs to store the river water
Then British Government of India referred the matter to arbitration under Rule IV of the 1892
Agreement. The Cauvery dispute thus had come up for arbitration for the first time.
They entered into proceedings on 16 July 1913 and the Award was given on 12 May 1914. The
award upheld the earlier decision of the Government of India and allowed Mysore to go ahead
with the construction of the dam up to 11 TMC.
Madras appealed against the award and negotiations continued.
1924- 18 February 1924 the Madras Presidency and Mysore state signed an agreement for 50
years i.e. till 1974
As per the agreement in 1924, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry would get 75% of the surplus water,
while Karnataka would get 23%. The remaining would go to Kerala. There were also restrictions
on how much land could be irrigated.
5. Post Independence
1956- Several protests have been witnessed in both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, which has
sometimes escalated into violence
Karnataka argued that the 50-year time period of1924 agreement had ended in 1974, not
obliged to stick to the regulations, especially since the river originated in the state
1960 to1980- Karnataka built four dams on Cauvery – Hemavati, Harangi, Kabini and
Suvarnavathy.
This became a problem for Tamil Nadu as the state had become dependent on Cauvery
water especially huge area of agricultural land in the delta area.
In 1970, Tamil Nadu Government approached Central Government to constitute the
tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers Association filed a civil suit in
Supreme Court
1986- Farmer's association in Tamil Nadu’s Thanjavur area moved the Supreme Court
demanding that a tribunal be formed for sorting out the water sharing dispute.
6. 1986- Tamil Nadu Govt again made a formal request to constitute the tribunal
1990- Supreme court heard the petitions submitted by both the states and directed them to
negotiate. When dialogue failed, the SC directed the Centre to form a tribunal which would
decide on the distribution of water between the two states.
1991- Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) calculated the water inflow to Tamil Nadu
between 1980 and 1990. In 1991, the tribunal in its interim order directed Karnataka to ensure
that 205 tmc ft of water reach Tamil Nadu per annum. The CWDT also ordered Karnataka to
stop its plan to increase irrigated land area.
The tribunal’s decision was not received well and riots erupted in both the states. Karnataka
rejected the tribunal’s award and sought for an annulment in the Supreme Court. The SC
struck down the state’s ordinance attempting to nullify the award and went on to uphold the
tribunal’s order.
7. 1998- the Cauvery River Authority (CRA) was formed and was tasked with implementing
the interim order of the CWDT. The CRA comprised of the Prime Minister as the
Chairperson and the Chief Ministers of the four states as its members.
2007- Tribunal announced its final order allocating 419 tmc ft water to Tamil Nadu and 270
tmc ft to Karnataka. Kerala was given 30 tmc ft and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed review petitions in Supreme Court
2013- Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the water to Tamil
Nadu. In 2013, Contempt of Court was issued against Karnataka.
2016- A petition was filed in Supreme Court seeking the release of water by Karnataka as
per the guidelines of the tribunal. When Supreme Court ordered Karnataka to release
water, Kannada people protested the decision saying they do not have enough water
8. 16 February 2018 - A bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered its verdict in the Cauveri water dispute, allocating
more water to the state of Karnataka.
The verdict also mandated to formally constitute the Cauvery river management board by
the union government within 40 days for implementing strictly the tribunal award and its
verdict.
As instructed by the Supreme Court, the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA)
was created by the Centre on 1 June 2018.
The Cauvery Water Regulation Committee was created three weeks later.
S. Masood Hussain was named as head of the CWMA and Navin Kumar was appointed
chairman of the CWRC.
9. Water in the Constitution of India
Water is a State subject as per entry 17 of State List and thus states are empowered to
enact legislation on water.
1. Entry 17 of State List deals with water i.e. water supply, irrigation, canal, drainage,
embankments, water storage and water power.
2. Entry 56 of Union List gives power to the Union Government for the regulation and
development of inter-state rivers and river valleys to the extent declared by Parliament to
be expedient in the public interest.
10. Article 262 of the Indian Constitution
Constituent Assembly anticipated the emergence of water disputes in future. A specific
provision of Article 262 is mentioned in the constitution itself due to the sensitivity of such
disputes.
In the case of disputes relating to waters, Article 262 provides:
Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to
the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley.
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may, by law provide that neither the
Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or
complaint.
11. Acts according to Article 262
1. River Board Act, 1956
The purpose of this Act was to enable the Union Government to create Boards for Interstate Rivers and
river valleys in consultation with State Governments. The objective of Boards is to advise on the inter-
state basin to prepare development scheme and to prevent the emergence of conflicts.
2. Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956
Provisions of the Act: In case, if a particular state or states approach to Union Government for the
constitution of the tribunal:
Central Government should try to resolve the matter by consultation among the aggrieved states.
.In case, if it does not work, then it may constitute the tribunal.
Note: Supreme Court shall not question the Award or formula given by tribunal but it can question the
working of the tribunal.
The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019, t is an amendment to the Inter-State River
Water Disputes Act, 1956
12. Critical review
Ramaswami R. Iyer, the legendary former secretary at the union ministry of water
resources, critiqued the Supreme Court’s role in encouraging litigation over the
Cauvery dispute.
Iyer’s contention was that the Supreme Court ought not to have admitted the special
leave petitions (SLPs) of the states concerned against the final order of the Cauvery
Water Disputes Tribunal in 2007, because of Article 262 of the constitution.
13. Conclusion
A classic example of institutional failure.
The problem persisted from more than a century , and a final verdict also took so much time and
few lives.
Largely due to political motives. Most of the time, rather than depending on the scientific research
involved, the government of respective states decided to act on people’s sentiments to protect their
vote bank.
This has been clearly shown in the case where the Executive committee responsible for making sure
whether the states are following the tribunal award, is stripped of its powers by the legislature.
Also, this also shows how crippled our judiciary and legislature is, which takes more than 16 years to
devise an act to control the situation. And ultimately when it makes it, it is on the basis of the
parameters which were used in 1892 and 1924, almost 100 years back!
They still haven’t incorporated a feasible distress sharing model in the final verdict. And as mentioned
before, there is no executive branch incorporated to make sure that all the stakeholders respect the
final award. This issue has just revolved around formation of numerous committees and regulatory
authorities, but a real solution is still not in sight in near future.
