Krishnadas Rajagopal The Supreme Court on Friday gifted Karnataka 14.75 TMC (thousand million cubic feet) of Cauvery water from Tamil Nadu’s share, reasoning that Karnataka has historically suffered “limited access and use” of the river water.
A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra reasoned that there is “confirmatory empirical data” that Tamil Nadu has 20 TMC groundwater available with it. The court asked Tamil Nadu to draw out at least 10 TMC of groundwater instead of banking on Cauvery water from Karnataka. The judgment even cites Karnataka’s submission that groundwater, if not extracted regularly, would be wasted.
The court ruled that 4.75 TMC of the 14.75 TMC is to be diverted to Bengaluru for domestic and drinking purposes. The judgment said the drinking water needs of Karnataka, especially of Bengaluru, the global city, were somehow “ignored” in the water-sharing agreement reached by the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT) in 2007.
“The drinking water needs of human beings and animals should be the first charge on any available water,” Chief Justice Misra, who authored the verdict, observed. Compared to Tamil Nadu, the court found that Karnataka, despite being the upper riparian State on the Cauvery basin, has 28 districts still reeling under drought.
‘Karnataka deserves more’
“We consider Karnataka to be more deserving amongst the competing States,” said the three-judge Bench, also comprising Justices Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar.
Out of the total 740 TMC available in the 802-km long Cauvery, the Supreme Court determined that Karnataka will now get 284.75 TMC, while Tamil Nadu’s share has been reduced to 404.25 TMC. Kerala and Puducherry will continue to get 30 TMC and 7 TMC, respectively.
The judgment, however, does not provide for distress years when water in the Cauvery basin falls below the 740 TMC available during a normal year.
The court gave the Centre six months’ time to frame a Cauvery water-sharing scheme under Section 6A of the Inter-State Water Dispute Act of 1956. The scheme has to be in consonance with the CWDT’s award and the changes introduced by the Supreme Court through this judgment. With this, the apex court cursorily dismissed the Centre’s claims that it has complete discretion to decide whether or not to frame a scheme.
The court held that subject to the formulation of a scheme, the water allocation arrangement should stand unchanged for the next 15 years.
More reports on p5