No State Can Interfere With Another State’s Decision On Water Management: Supreme Court Rejects Tamil Nadu’s Application Seeking Stay On Operation Of Mekedatu Dam Project
The State of Tamil Nadu had approached the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the operation of the permission given by the Central Water Commission to go ahead with the preparation of a Detailed Project Report for the Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir cum Drinking Water project.
CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has rejected an application filed by the State of Tamil Nadu seeking a stay on the operation of the permission given to go ahead with the preparation of a Detailed Project Report for the Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir cum Drinking Water project. The Apex Court has held that no other State has a right to interfere with the decision regarding the management and use of water allotted to a particular State unless, by such act, the water allotted to that State is reduced.
The State of Tamil Nadu had approached the Apex Court seeking a stay on the operation of the permission given by the Central Water Commission on November 22, 2018, to Karnataka Cauvery Neeravari Nigam Ltd., Bangalore, an instrumentality of the State of Karnataka to go ahead with the preparation of a Detailed Project Report for the Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir cum Drinking Water project.
The 3-Judge Bench of Chief Justice Of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed, “It cannot be disputed that every State is free to utilise water allotted to its quota in the manner it finds to be in the best interest of the State. No other State has a right to interfere with the decision regarding the management and use of water allotted to a particular State unless by such act the water allotted to that State is reduced. As already discussed hereinabove, the CWMA and CWRC are the body of experts which will have to ensure that the water allotted to the State of Tamil Nadu reaches as per the Award of the CWDT, as modified by this Court, at the measuring point at Biligundulu.”
Factual Background
The water sharing dispute between the State of Tamil Nadu and the State of Karnataka came to be finally decided by the Apex Court in 2018. The Court concluded various issues with regard to the sharing of water between various States, including the States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu & Kerala and the Union Territory of Puducherry. In order to carry out the decree of this Court, the Union of India provided for the Cauvery Water Management Scheme consisting of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water Regulatory Committee (CWRC). The State of Karnataka was proposing to construct a dam on the Cauvery River at Mekedatu under the project titled as “Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir Cum Drinking Water Project”. On receipt of the request from the Government of Karnataka with regard to the aforesaid project, the Central Water Commission (CWC) sought a report from the CWMA.
The said project was placed for consideration before the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee gave a go-ahead to the project. The CWC permitted the State of Karnataka to prepare a Detailed Project Report. The CWC had forwarded the comments of the specialized directorates of CWC and CEA, which were to be duly complied with while preparing the DPR. It was in such circumstances that the applicant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that what was being done by the State of Karnataka in view of the letter/order dated November 22, 2018, passed by the CWC was only permitting the preparation of a DPR, after taking into consideration the objections of the State of Tamil Nadu and the remarks of the concerned directorate of CWC and CEA.
On a perusal of the material placed on record, the Bench noted that the directions of the CWC were based upon the suggestions and recommendations of the experts’ body. The DPR to be prepared by the State of Karnataka was to be considered by the CWC only if the CWMA approved of the same, inasmuch as the letter stated that the prior approval of the CWMA would be a prerequisite for consideration of the DPR. “In that view of the matter, we find that the present application, when the expert body is in seisin of the matter, is totally misconceived”, it noted.
The Bench noticed that the State of Karnataka would be bound to release the water, as directed by the CWMA, which would be measured by the CWC at the measuring point of Biligundulu. “If the State of Karnataka fails in complying with the directions issued by this Court, then it faces the risk of committing the Contempt of this Court”, it added.
“Needless to state that in the event the DPR is approved by the CWC, the parties would be at liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law”, the Bench ordered while rejecting the application.
Cause Title: The State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1343)