All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
UPSC Exam  >  UPSC Questions  >  Supreme court's verdict on tamilnadu karnatak... Start Learning for Free
Supreme court's verdict on tamilnadu karnataka cauvery water dispute?
Clear all your UPSC doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
Supreme court's verdict on tamilnadu karnataka cauvery water dispute?
Supreme Court's Verdict on Tamil Nadu-Karnataka Cauvery Water Dispute

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment on the long-standing Cauvery water dispute between the states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The dispute over sharing the waters of the Cauvery River has been a contentious issue for decades and has led to tensions and protests between the two states.

Background:
The Cauvery River originates in Karnataka and flows through Tamil Nadu before joining the Bay of Bengal. The dispute arises from the sharing of the waters of the river between the two states. Both states have been claiming their rightful share of the river's water for irrigation and other purposes.

Key Points of the Supreme Court's Verdict:
The Supreme Court's verdict on the Cauvery water dispute can be summarized as follows:

1. Formation of the Cauvery Management Board (CMB): The Supreme Court directed the central government to constitute the Cauvery Management Board (CMB) within six weeks from the date of the judgment. The CMB would be responsible for implementing the tribunal's award and ensuring the proper sharing of Cauvery water among the riparian states.

2. Water Sharing Formula: The court upheld the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's (CWDT) final award, which was modified by a subsequent Supreme Court order. According to the formula, Tamil Nadu will receive 404.25 thousand million cubic feet (TMC) of water, Karnataka will receive 284.75 TMC, Kerala will receive 30 TMC, and Puducherry will receive 7 TMC.

3. Reduction in Karnataka's Share: The Supreme Court reduced Karnataka's share of Cauvery water by 14.75 TMC, citing the increased demand for drinking water in Bengaluru and other cities in the state. This reduction was aimed at addressing the concerns of the growing urban population in Karnataka.

4. Mandatory Releases: The court directed Karnataka to release 177.25 TMC of water to Tamil Nadu in a "normal year" from June to May. In case of a "distress year," the release would be 192 TMC. The court also emphasized the need for regular monitoring and compliance with the water-sharing arrangements.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's verdict on the Cauvery water dispute attempted to strike a balance between the competing interests of the riparian states. By upholding the award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and reducing Karnataka's share, the court aimed to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the river's water. The formation of the Cauvery Management Board further reinforced the court's commitment to implementing the water-sharing arrangements and resolving the long-standing dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
Explore Courses for UPSC exam

Similar UPSC Doubts

The biggest gain from the Union Governments welcome decision to notify the final award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal is that it may be the first and most significant step towards a permanent solution to the persistent conflict over sharing the inter-State rivers waters. A positive feature is that implementation ofthe final award will involve the formation of a Cauvery Management Board to regulate the supply of water and a Water Regulation Committee, which will post representatives in each of the eight reservoirs in the basin states, to ensure that the decisions are carried out. Giving finality to the award through the notification may help take the issue away from politics and place it in the hands of a technical, expert body. The February 2007 award has been questioned by way of clarification petitions before the Tribunal itself as well as suits in the Supreme Court by both parties and sceptics may wonder how useful the gazette notification may be now. The parties are still free to pursue their clarification petitions and appeals, but in the larger interest of a long term solution and to end seasonal acrimony, they would do well to give the award a chance.The fact that notifying the award has been a long pending demand ofTamil Nadu should not make one believe that the action redounds to one partys benefit to the detriment of the other. It was the Supreme Court that made the suggestion that thefinal decision be notified and counsel for all the basin states have agreed that it should be done. It may be argued that gazetting the award will not resolve the present standoff over judicial and administrative directives to Karnataka to release water to save standing crops in Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery Monitoring Committee, while asking Karnataka to ensure 12 thousand million cubic feet of water to Tamil Nadu in December, has itself admitted that its decision is unlikely to satisfy either party, given that both states have less water in their reservoirs than in previous years. Yet, is has opted for a pragmatic solution under which both states will be in deficit of approximately 47 tmcft. It is the same spirit of pragmatism that both states must now approach the larger problem of sharing water as per a judicially determined solution in both normal and distress years. The two should not let posterity say of them that long after equitable distribution has entrenched itself as the most acceptable doctrine in riverine jurisprudence, they did not allow a judicially determines system for sharing to work.Q.It can be inferred that notifying the final award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal could lead to

The biggest gain from the Union Governments welcome decision to notify the final award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal is that it may be the first and most significant step towards a permanent solution to the persistent conflict over sharing the inter-State rivers waters. A positive feature is that implementation ofthe final award will involve the formation of a Cauvery Management Board to regulate the supply of water and a Water Regulation Committee, which will post representatives in each of the eight reservoirs in the basin states, to ensure that the decisions are carried out. Giving finality to the award through the notification may help take the issue away from politics and place it in the hands of a technical, expert body. The February 2007 award has been questioned by way of clarification petitions before the Tribunal itself as well as suits in the Supreme Court by both parties and sceptics may wonder how useful the gazette notification may be now. The parties are still free to pursue their clarification petitions and appeals, but in the larger interest of a long term solution and to end seasonal acrimony, they would do well to give the award a chance.The fact that notifying the award has been a long pending demand ofTamil Nadu should not make one believe that the action redounds to one partys benefit to the detriment of the other. It was the Supreme Court that made the suggestion that thefinal decision be notified and counsel for all the basin states have agreed that it should be done. It may be argued that gazetting the award will not resolve the present standoff over judicial and administrative directives to Karnataka to release water to save standing crops in Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery Monitoring Committee, while asking Karnataka to ensure 12 thousand million cubic feet of water to Tamil Nadu in December, has itself admitted that its decision is unlikely to satisfy either party, given that both states have less water in their reservoirs than in previous years. Yet, is has opted for a pragmatic solution under which both states will be in deficit of approximately 47 tmcft. It is the same spirit of pragmatism that both states must now approach the larger problem of sharing water as per a judicially determined solution in both normal and distress years. The two should not let posterity say of them that long after equitable distribution has entrenched itself as the most acceptable doctrine in riverine jurisprudence, they did not allow a judicially determines system for sharing to work.Q.Which of the following options cannot be inferred as a negation with respect to the award of the tribunal?

The biggest gain from the Union Governments welcome decision to notify the final award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal is that it may be the first and most significant step towards a permanent solution to the persistent conflict over sharing the inter-State rivers waters. A positive feature is that implementation ofthe final award will involve the formation of a Cauvery Management Board to regulate the supply of water and a Water Regulation Committee, which will post representatives in each of the eight reservoirs in the basin states, to ensure that the decisions are carried out. Giving finality to the award through the notification may help take the issue away from politics and place it in the hands of a technical, expert body. The February 2007 award has been questioned by way of clarification petitions before the Tribunal itself as well as suits in the Supreme Court by both parties and sceptics may wonder how useful the gazette notification may be now. The parties are still free to pursue their clarification petitions and appeals, but in the larger interest of a long term solution and to end seasonal acrimony, they would do well to give the award a chance.The fact that notifying the award has been a long pending demand ofTamil Nadu should not make one believe that the action redounds to one partys benefit to the detriment of the other. It was the Supreme Court that made the suggestion that thefinal decision be notified and counsel for all the basin states have agreed that it should be done. It may be argued that gazetting the award will not resolve the present standoff over judicial and administrative directives to Karnataka to release water to save standing crops in Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery Monitoring Committee, while asking Karnataka to ensure 12 thousand million cubic feet of water to Tamil Nadu in December, has itself admitted that its decision is unlikely to satisfy either party, given that both states have less water in their reservoirs than in previous years. Yet, is has opted for a pragmatic solution under which both states will be in deficit of approximately 47 tmcft. It is the same spirit of pragmatism that both states must now approach the larger problem of sharing water as per a judicially determined solution in both normal and distress years. The two should not let posterity say of them that long after equitable distribution has entrenched itself as the most acceptable doctrine in riverine jurisprudence, they did not allow a judicially determines system for sharing to work.Q.Consider the following assumptions:1. The 2 parties in the dispute should favour the setting up of the tribunal as it will bring some resolution to the issue2. The dispute between the 2 parties is best solved through the judicial route.Which of the following assumptions are valid?

Top Courses for UPSCView all

Top Courses for UPSC

Supreme court's verdict on tamilnadu karnataka cauvery water dispute?
Question Description
Supreme court's verdict on tamilnadu karnataka cauvery water dispute? for UPSC 2025 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about Supreme court's verdict on tamilnadu karnataka cauvery water dispute? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Supreme court's verdict on tamilnadu karnataka cauvery water dispute?.
Solutions for Supreme court's verdict on tamilnadu karnataka cauvery water dispute? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for UPSC. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for UPSC Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Supreme court's verdict on tamilnadu karnataka cauvery water dispute? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Supreme court's verdict on tamilnadu karnataka cauvery water dispute?, a detailed solution for Supreme court's verdict on tamilnadu karnataka cauvery water dispute? has been provided alongside types of Supreme court's verdict on tamilnadu karnataka cauvery water dispute? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Supreme court's verdict on tamilnadu karnataka cauvery water dispute? tests, examples and also practice UPSC tests.
Explore Courses for UPSC exam

Top Courses for UPSC

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup