‘Releasing 6,000 Cusecs Is Impossible’: Karnataka May Move Supreme Court Over Cauvery Water Order
The Cauvery water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu has intensified once again, with Karnataka indicating that it may approach the Supreme Court against the latest direction to ensure a flow of 6,000 cusecs of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu for 15 days. Karnataka Water Resources Minister N Chaluvarayaswamy on Tuesday said the state was seriously considering legal action, arguing that the present water situation makes the mandated release extremely difficult.
The latest development follows the decision of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) to recommend that Karnataka ensure 6,000 cusecs of water reaches Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) subsequently upheld the recommendation at its meeting in Delhi on September 8.
Karnataka Says 6,000 Cusecs Cannot Be Released
Chaluvarayaswamy described the CWRC direction as “absurd” and said Karnataka’s position was strongly presented before the committee. According to the minister, inflows into the Cauvery basin have declined considerably over the past week, creating a difficult situation for the state.
He said Tamil Nadu had sought 17,000 cusecs, but Karnataka’s officials argued that even releasing 6,000 cusecs would be impossible under the current circumstances. The state, he said, was making efforts to prevent the release because of concerns over its own water requirements.
The Karnataka government is particularly concerned about maintaining adequate reserves for drinking water. The minister said approximately half of the water available in the state’s reservoirs was being reserved exclusively for drinking-water requirements, while water was also being managed to support agriculture and maintain supplies for people and livestock.
Karnataka Government Considers Supreme Court Challenge
The state government is now considering challenging the direction before the Supreme Court. Chaluvarayaswamy said the matter would be discussed with Chief Minister D K Shivakumar before a final decision is taken, adding that the government was seriously considering filing a petition as early as September 9.
The proposed legal challenge comes after the CWMA upheld the latest recommendation despite Karnataka’s objections. The dispute therefore appears to be moving once again from the inter-state water-management mechanism towards the Supreme Court, where the competing claims of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have repeatedly come under judicial scrutiny.
Fresh Order Follows Earlier Cauvery Releases
The present 6,000-cusecs direction is not an isolated development. On August 25, the CWMA had upheld an earlier recommendation requiring Karnataka to ensure a flow of 9,000 cusecs to Tamil Nadu for 15 days.
That earlier direction followed the CWRC’s August 24 decision requiring Karnataka to release water from its reservoirs and maintain a flow of 9,000 cusecs at Biligundulu, the interstate measuring point. Tamil Nadu was expected to receive approximately 11.66 TMC of water during that period.
Before that, the CWRC had directed Karnataka to release 12,000 cusecs of water daily for 15 days from August 12, a decision subsequently upheld by the CWMA. The successive reductions in the prescribed flow nevertheless have failed to resolve the underlying dispute between the two states.
Supreme Court’s Role In The Latest Dispute
The latest CWMA meeting also comes against the backdrop of a Supreme Court direction issued a day earlier. The Court directed the Tamil Nadu government to raise its grievance regarding the release of its proportionate share of Cauvery water by Karnataka before the CWMA.
This sequence of events is significant because it shows how the Cauvery dispute continues to involve both the statutory water-management authorities and the Supreme Court. While the CWRC and CWMA deal with operational questions concerning water releases, the Supreme Court remains an important forum when states challenge decisions or seek judicial intervention.
Karnataka Raises Ground-Reality Concerns
Karnataka has argued that decisions on water releases must take into account the actual storage position and inflows in the Cauvery basin. Chaluvarayaswamy criticised what he described as decisions being taken in Delhi without sufficient understanding of conditions on the ground.
The state says its reservoirs have to be managed carefully not only for agricultural requirements but also for drinking water, livestock and other essential needs. According to the minister, water is being released in a controlled manner to fill lakes and ponds and prevent shortages in areas dependent upon reservoir supplies.
Tamil Nadu’s Water Requirements Remain At The Centre
For Tamil Nadu, the Cauvery release is closely connected with agricultural requirements as well as drinking-water needs. Earlier directions were also justified in the context of supporting Kuruvai cultivation and meeting drinking-water requirements in the state.
The disagreement therefore goes beyond a simple question of the quantity of water released on a particular day. At its core is the continuing conflict between Karnataka’s claim that its available water must first be managed against present storage and inflow conditions and Tamil Nadu’s claim to receive water in accordance with the established Cauvery-sharing framework.
A Dispute With A Long Legal History
The current confrontation also recalls the long judicial history of the Cauvery dispute. The Supreme Court had previously issued directions requiring Karnataka to release 6,000 cusecs during the intense inter-state dispute of 2016. Official records of the Court show that such directions were issued amid continuing disagreements between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the quantity of water to be released.
The present situation, however, arises under the post-Cauvery Tribunal framework and involves the functioning of the CWRC and CWMA. The repeated involvement of these authorities demonstrates the continuing challenge of translating a long-term water-sharing arrangement into day-to-day decisions when reservoir levels, rainfall and inflows fluctuate.
What Happens Next
The immediate question is whether Karnataka will actually approach the Supreme Court against the latest 6,000-cusecs direction. The state government is expected to consult the Chief Minister before taking a final decision. If a petition is filed, the Supreme Court could once again be called upon to examine the competing claims against the backdrop of the prevailing water situation.
For now, the CWMA’s direction remains the latest administrative position: Karnataka has been asked to ensure a flow of 6,000 cusecs to Tamil Nadu for 15 days. Karnataka, however, maintains that even this reduced quantity is beyond what it can safely release given the current inflow and storage situation.
The developing dispute could therefore soon become a fresh Supreme Court battle, bringing Karnataka’s concerns over water scarcity and reservoir storage directly into conflict with Tamil Nadu’s demand for its share of Cauvery water.
