Notes: IRWD updates | Political Science & International Relations: Mains Optional - UPSC PDF Download

 Page 1


 
Cauvery Water Dispute:  
? Cauvery is an inter-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
Bengal. The states concerned 
Puducherry (UT). 
? In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
and British province of Madras.
? In 1924 a new agreement for 50 years i.e. till 1974.
? In 1970, Tamil Nadu 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
Association filed a civil suit in Supreme Court.
? In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal. 
? In 1990, the tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court.
? The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
Karnataka so as to ensure 205 Thousand Million Cubic Feet 
water into Mettur reservoir of Tamil Nadu in a water year (1
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
refused to obey the interim award.
? After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
review petitions in Supreme Court.
? In 2013, the Centre notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
(CMB) with the gazette notification of the final award of the 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
 
Lecture 15.1: 
-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
Bengal. The states concerned are Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and 
In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
and British province of Madras. 
a new agreement for 50 years i.e. till 1974. 
In 1970, Tamil Nadu Government approached to Central Government to 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
Association filed a civil suit in Supreme Court. 
In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal passed an Interim order in 1991 
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
Karnataka so as to ensure 205 Thousand Million Cubic Feet (TMC) of 
water into Mettur reservoir of Tamil Nadu in a water year (1
st
 June to 31st 
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
refused to obey the interim award. 
After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
review petitions in Supreme Court. 
re notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
(CMB) with the gazette notification of the final award of the 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
are Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and 
In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
Government approached to Central Government to 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court. 
passed an Interim order in 1991 
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
(TMC) of 
June to 31st 
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced its 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
re notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
Page 2


 
Cauvery Water Dispute:  
? Cauvery is an inter-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
Bengal. The states concerned 
Puducherry (UT). 
? In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
and British province of Madras.
? In 1924 a new agreement for 50 years i.e. till 1974.
? In 1970, Tamil Nadu 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
Association filed a civil suit in Supreme Court.
? In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal. 
? In 1990, the tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court.
? The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
Karnataka so as to ensure 205 Thousand Million Cubic Feet 
water into Mettur reservoir of Tamil Nadu in a water year (1
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
refused to obey the interim award.
? After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
review petitions in Supreme Court.
? In 2013, the Centre notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
(CMB) with the gazette notification of the final award of the 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
 
Lecture 15.1: 
-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
Bengal. The states concerned are Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and 
In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
and British province of Madras. 
a new agreement for 50 years i.e. till 1974. 
In 1970, Tamil Nadu Government approached to Central Government to 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
Association filed a civil suit in Supreme Court. 
In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal passed an Interim order in 1991 
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
Karnataka so as to ensure 205 Thousand Million Cubic Feet (TMC) of 
water into Mettur reservoir of Tamil Nadu in a water year (1
st
 June to 31st 
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
refused to obey the interim award. 
After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
review petitions in Supreme Court. 
re notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
(CMB) with the gazette notification of the final award of the 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
are Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and 
In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
Government approached to Central Government to 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court. 
passed an Interim order in 1991 
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
(TMC) of 
June to 31st 
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced its 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
re notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
 
water to Tamil Nadu. In 2013, Contempt of Court was issued against 
Karnataka. 
? In 2014 Justice Chauhan is Chairman of Cauvery Water Disputes 
Tribunal. In 2015 Karnataka says the flows into the Cauvery basin has 
been drastically less due to the failure of the south
Karnataka and Kerala this year. The Supreme Court directs the Karnataka 
government to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil 
Nadu for the next 10 days to ameliorate the plight of farmers
cultivation. Noting that the samba crops in Tami
affected, a Bench — comprising Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit 
directs Karnataka to ensure supply of water to Tamil Nadu.
? The fight led to violent agitations rocking Ka
weeks’ time was set by the Supreme Court to form the Cauver
management board. In 2018, the 
that Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery waters has been reduc
TMC which has been allocated instead to Karnataka. The decision, taken 
by a Bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava 
Roy and A M Khanwilkar
meet the drinking needs of Karnataka and its capital Bengaluru which 
will receive 4 TMC of additional water from Cauvery. The SC declared 
that the decision was take
into account groundwater held below the Cauvery basin in Tamil Nadu 
although the net irrigation area was correctly calculated.
? In its judgment, the Supreme Court had ordered the Centre to formulate a 
"scheme" to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's 
modified by it. The naming of the "scheme" itself raised a political storm, 
especially in the key States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. While the 
former wanted to stick to the Tribunal's order of setting up a Cauvery 
Management Board, the latter opp
with the name Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018.
? As per the gazette notification, the 
Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water 
Regulation Committee (CWRA). 
 
Tamil Nadu. In 2013, Contempt of Court was issued against 
In 2014 Justice Chauhan is Chairman of Cauvery Water Disputes 
Tribunal. In 2015 Karnataka says the flows into the Cauvery basin has 
been drastically less due to the failure of the south-west monsoon in 
Karnataka and Kerala this year. The Supreme Court directs the Karnataka 
government to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil 
Nadu for the next 10 days to ameliorate the plight of farmers for Samba 
. Noting that the samba crops in Tamil Nadu will be adversely 
comprising Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit 
directs Karnataka to ensure supply of water to Tamil Nadu. 
violent agitations rocking Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. S
set by the Supreme Court to form the Cauvery wa
In 2018, the Supreme Court on Friday pronounced 
that Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery waters has been reduced by 14.75 
TMC which has been allocated instead to Karnataka. The decision, taken 
by a Bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava 
Roy and A M Khanwilkar. The amount of water will now be available to 
meet the drinking needs of Karnataka and its capital Bengaluru which 
will receive 4 TMC of additional water from Cauvery. The SC declared 
that the decision was taken considering that the CWDT had failed to take 
into account groundwater held below the Cauvery basin in Tamil Nadu 
although the net irrigation area was correctly calculated.  
the Supreme Court had ordered the Centre to formulate a 
"scheme" to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's 
modified by it. The naming of the "scheme" itself raised a political storm, 
especially in the key States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. While the 
former wanted to stick to the Tribunal's order of setting up a Cauvery 
Management Board, the latter opposed it. The Centre finally settled down 
with the name Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018. 
e gazette notification, the Scheme involves setting up of a 
Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water 
Regulation Committee (CWRA). While the Authority will oversee the 
Tamil Nadu. In 2013, Contempt of Court was issued against 
In 2014 Justice Chauhan is Chairman of Cauvery Water Disputes 
Tribunal. In 2015 Karnataka says the flows into the Cauvery basin has 
west monsoon in 
Karnataka and Kerala this year. The Supreme Court directs the Karnataka 
government to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil 
for Samba 
l Nadu will be adversely 
comprising Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit — 
il Nadu. Six 
y water 
pronounced 
ed by 14.75 
TMC which has been allocated instead to Karnataka. The decision, taken 
by a Bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava 
The amount of water will now be available to 
meet the drinking needs of Karnataka and its capital Bengaluru which 
will receive 4 TMC of additional water from Cauvery. The SC declared 
n considering that the CWDT had failed to take 
into account groundwater held below the Cauvery basin in Tamil Nadu 
the Supreme Court had ordered the Centre to formulate a 
"scheme" to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's order as 
modified by it. The naming of the "scheme" itself raised a political storm, 
especially in the key States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. While the 
former wanted to stick to the Tribunal's order of setting up a Cauvery 
osed it. The Centre finally settled down 
Scheme involves setting up of a 
Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water 
While the Authority will oversee the 
Page 3


 
Cauvery Water Dispute:  
? Cauvery is an inter-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
Bengal. The states concerned 
Puducherry (UT). 
? In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
and British province of Madras.
? In 1924 a new agreement for 50 years i.e. till 1974.
? In 1970, Tamil Nadu 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
Association filed a civil suit in Supreme Court.
? In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal. 
? In 1990, the tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court.
? The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
Karnataka so as to ensure 205 Thousand Million Cubic Feet 
water into Mettur reservoir of Tamil Nadu in a water year (1
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
refused to obey the interim award.
? After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
review petitions in Supreme Court.
? In 2013, the Centre notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
(CMB) with the gazette notification of the final award of the 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
 
Lecture 15.1: 
-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
Bengal. The states concerned are Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and 
In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
and British province of Madras. 
a new agreement for 50 years i.e. till 1974. 
In 1970, Tamil Nadu Government approached to Central Government to 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
Association filed a civil suit in Supreme Court. 
In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal passed an Interim order in 1991 
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
Karnataka so as to ensure 205 Thousand Million Cubic Feet (TMC) of 
water into Mettur reservoir of Tamil Nadu in a water year (1
st
 June to 31st 
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
refused to obey the interim award. 
After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
review petitions in Supreme Court. 
re notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
(CMB) with the gazette notification of the final award of the 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
are Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and 
In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
Government approached to Central Government to 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court. 
passed an Interim order in 1991 
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
(TMC) of 
June to 31st 
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced its 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
re notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
 
water to Tamil Nadu. In 2013, Contempt of Court was issued against 
Karnataka. 
? In 2014 Justice Chauhan is Chairman of Cauvery Water Disputes 
Tribunal. In 2015 Karnataka says the flows into the Cauvery basin has 
been drastically less due to the failure of the south
Karnataka and Kerala this year. The Supreme Court directs the Karnataka 
government to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil 
Nadu for the next 10 days to ameliorate the plight of farmers
cultivation. Noting that the samba crops in Tami
affected, a Bench — comprising Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit 
directs Karnataka to ensure supply of water to Tamil Nadu.
? The fight led to violent agitations rocking Ka
weeks’ time was set by the Supreme Court to form the Cauver
management board. In 2018, the 
that Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery waters has been reduc
TMC which has been allocated instead to Karnataka. The decision, taken 
by a Bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava 
Roy and A M Khanwilkar
meet the drinking needs of Karnataka and its capital Bengaluru which 
will receive 4 TMC of additional water from Cauvery. The SC declared 
that the decision was take
into account groundwater held below the Cauvery basin in Tamil Nadu 
although the net irrigation area was correctly calculated.
? In its judgment, the Supreme Court had ordered the Centre to formulate a 
"scheme" to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's 
modified by it. The naming of the "scheme" itself raised a political storm, 
especially in the key States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. While the 
former wanted to stick to the Tribunal's order of setting up a Cauvery 
Management Board, the latter opp
with the name Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018.
? As per the gazette notification, the 
Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water 
Regulation Committee (CWRA). 
 
Tamil Nadu. In 2013, Contempt of Court was issued against 
In 2014 Justice Chauhan is Chairman of Cauvery Water Disputes 
Tribunal. In 2015 Karnataka says the flows into the Cauvery basin has 
been drastically less due to the failure of the south-west monsoon in 
Karnataka and Kerala this year. The Supreme Court directs the Karnataka 
government to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil 
Nadu for the next 10 days to ameliorate the plight of farmers for Samba 
. Noting that the samba crops in Tamil Nadu will be adversely 
comprising Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit 
directs Karnataka to ensure supply of water to Tamil Nadu. 
violent agitations rocking Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. S
set by the Supreme Court to form the Cauvery wa
In 2018, the Supreme Court on Friday pronounced 
that Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery waters has been reduced by 14.75 
TMC which has been allocated instead to Karnataka. The decision, taken 
by a Bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava 
Roy and A M Khanwilkar. The amount of water will now be available to 
meet the drinking needs of Karnataka and its capital Bengaluru which 
will receive 4 TMC of additional water from Cauvery. The SC declared 
that the decision was taken considering that the CWDT had failed to take 
into account groundwater held below the Cauvery basin in Tamil Nadu 
although the net irrigation area was correctly calculated.  
the Supreme Court had ordered the Centre to formulate a 
"scheme" to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's 
modified by it. The naming of the "scheme" itself raised a political storm, 
especially in the key States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. While the 
former wanted to stick to the Tribunal's order of setting up a Cauvery 
Management Board, the latter opposed it. The Centre finally settled down 
with the name Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018. 
e gazette notification, the Scheme involves setting up of a 
Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water 
Regulation Committee (CWRA). While the Authority will oversee the 
Tamil Nadu. In 2013, Contempt of Court was issued against 
In 2014 Justice Chauhan is Chairman of Cauvery Water Disputes 
Tribunal. In 2015 Karnataka says the flows into the Cauvery basin has 
west monsoon in 
Karnataka and Kerala this year. The Supreme Court directs the Karnataka 
government to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil 
for Samba 
l Nadu will be adversely 
comprising Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit — 
il Nadu. Six 
y water 
pronounced 
ed by 14.75 
TMC which has been allocated instead to Karnataka. The decision, taken 
by a Bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava 
The amount of water will now be available to 
meet the drinking needs of Karnataka and its capital Bengaluru which 
will receive 4 TMC of additional water from Cauvery. The SC declared 
n considering that the CWDT had failed to take 
into account groundwater held below the Cauvery basin in Tamil Nadu 
the Supreme Court had ordered the Centre to formulate a 
"scheme" to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's order as 
modified by it. The naming of the "scheme" itself raised a political storm, 
especially in the key States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. While the 
former wanted to stick to the Tribunal's order of setting up a Cauvery 
osed it. The Centre finally settled down 
Scheme involves setting up of a 
Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water 
While the Authority will oversee the 
 
storage, apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters, the 
Committee will monitor the daily water levels, inflows and storage 
position at major reservoirs storing the Cauvery water.
Krishna Water Dispute: 
? The Krishna is an east
Maharashtra and merges with the Bay of Bengal, flowing through 
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Together with 
its tributaries, it forms a vast basin that covers 33% of the total area of the 
four states. 
? A dispute over the sharing of Krishna waters has been ongoing for many 
decades, beginning with the erstwhile Hyderabad and Mysore states, and 
later continuing between successors Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra 
Pradesh. 
? In 1969, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was set up under 
the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, and presented its report in 
1973. The report, which was published in 1976, divided the 2060 TMC 
(thousand million cubic feet) of Krishna water at 75 per cent 
dependability into three parts: 560 TMC for Maharashtra, 700 TMC for 
Karnataka and 800 TMC for Andhra Pradesh. At the same time, it was 
stipulated that the KWDT order may be reviewed or revised by a 
competent authority or tribunal any time after May 31, 2000.
? Afterward, as new grievances arose between the states, the second 
KWDT was instituted in 2004. It delivered its report in 2010, which made 
allocations of the Krishna water at 65 per cent dependability and for 
surplus flows as follows: 81 TMC for Maharashtra, 177 TMC for 
Karnataka, and 190 TMC for Andhra Pradesh.
? Soon after the 2010 report was presented, Andhra Pradesh challenged it 
through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in 2011. In an 
order in the same year, the apex court stopped the Centre from publishing 
it in the official Gazette.
? In 2013, the KWDT issued a ‘further report’, which was again challenged 
by Andhra Pradesh in the Supreme Court in 2014. After the creation of 
Telangana from Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the Water Resources Ministry 
has been extending the duration of the KWDT.
 
storage, apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters, the 
Committee will monitor the daily water levels, inflows and storage 
position at major reservoirs storing the Cauvery water. 
he Krishna is an east-flowing river that originates at Mahabaleshwar in 
Maharashtra and merges with the Bay of Bengal, flowing through 
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Together with 
its tributaries, it forms a vast basin that covers 33% of the total area of the 
A dispute over the sharing of Krishna waters has been ongoing for many 
decades, beginning with the erstwhile Hyderabad and Mysore states, and 
later continuing between successors Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra 
In 1969, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was set up under 
State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, and presented its report in 
1973. The report, which was published in 1976, divided the 2060 TMC 
cubic feet) of Krishna water at 75 per cent 
dependability into three parts: 560 TMC for Maharashtra, 700 TMC for 
Karnataka and 800 TMC for Andhra Pradesh. At the same time, it was 
stipulated that the KWDT order may be reviewed or revised by a 
thority or tribunal any time after May 31, 2000. 
Afterward, as new grievances arose between the states, the second 
KWDT was instituted in 2004. It delivered its report in 2010, which made 
of the Krishna water at 65 per cent dependability and for 
surplus flows as follows: 81 TMC for Maharashtra, 177 TMC for 
Karnataka, and 190 TMC for Andhra Pradesh. 
Soon after the 2010 report was presented, Andhra Pradesh challenged it 
through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in 2011. In an 
order in the same year, the apex court stopped the Centre from publishing 
it in the official Gazette.  
he KWDT issued a ‘further report’, which was again challenged 
by Andhra Pradesh in the Supreme Court in 2014. After the creation of 
Telangana from Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the Water Resources Ministry 
has been extending the duration of the KWDT. 
storage, apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters, the 
Committee will monitor the daily water levels, inflows and storage 
that originates at Mahabaleshwar in 
Maharashtra and merges with the Bay of Bengal, flowing through 
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Together with 
its tributaries, it forms a vast basin that covers 33% of the total area of the 
A dispute over the sharing of Krishna waters has been ongoing for many 
decades, beginning with the erstwhile Hyderabad and Mysore states, and 
later continuing between successors Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra 
In 1969, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was set up under 
State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, and presented its report in 
1973. The report, which was published in 1976, divided the 2060 TMC 
dependability into three parts: 560 TMC for Maharashtra, 700 TMC for 
Karnataka and 800 TMC for Andhra Pradesh. At the same time, it was 
stipulated that the KWDT order may be reviewed or revised by a 
Afterward, as new grievances arose between the states, the second 
KWDT was instituted in 2004. It delivered its report in 2010, which made 
of the Krishna water at 65 per cent dependability and for 
surplus flows as follows: 81 TMC for Maharashtra, 177 TMC for 
Soon after the 2010 report was presented, Andhra Pradesh challenged it 
through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in 2011. In an 
order in the same year, the apex court stopped the Centre from publishing 
he KWDT issued a ‘further report’, which was again challenged 
by Andhra Pradesh in the Supreme Court in 2014. After the creation of 
Telangana from Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the Water Resources Ministry 
Page 4


 
Cauvery Water Dispute:  
? Cauvery is an inter-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
Bengal. The states concerned 
Puducherry (UT). 
? In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
and British province of Madras.
? In 1924 a new agreement for 50 years i.e. till 1974.
? In 1970, Tamil Nadu 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
Association filed a civil suit in Supreme Court.
? In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal. 
? In 1990, the tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court.
? The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
Karnataka so as to ensure 205 Thousand Million Cubic Feet 
water into Mettur reservoir of Tamil Nadu in a water year (1
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
refused to obey the interim award.
? After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
review petitions in Supreme Court.
? In 2013, the Centre notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
(CMB) with the gazette notification of the final award of the 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
 
Lecture 15.1: 
-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
Bengal. The states concerned are Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and 
In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
and British province of Madras. 
a new agreement for 50 years i.e. till 1974. 
In 1970, Tamil Nadu Government approached to Central Government to 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
Association filed a civil suit in Supreme Court. 
In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal passed an Interim order in 1991 
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
Karnataka so as to ensure 205 Thousand Million Cubic Feet (TMC) of 
water into Mettur reservoir of Tamil Nadu in a water year (1
st
 June to 31st 
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
refused to obey the interim award. 
After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
review petitions in Supreme Court. 
re notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
(CMB) with the gazette notification of the final award of the 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
are Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and 
In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
Government approached to Central Government to 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court. 
passed an Interim order in 1991 
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
(TMC) of 
June to 31st 
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced its 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
re notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
 
water to Tamil Nadu. In 2013, Contempt of Court was issued against 
Karnataka. 
? In 2014 Justice Chauhan is Chairman of Cauvery Water Disputes 
Tribunal. In 2015 Karnataka says the flows into the Cauvery basin has 
been drastically less due to the failure of the south
Karnataka and Kerala this year. The Supreme Court directs the Karnataka 
government to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil 
Nadu for the next 10 days to ameliorate the plight of farmers
cultivation. Noting that the samba crops in Tami
affected, a Bench — comprising Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit 
directs Karnataka to ensure supply of water to Tamil Nadu.
? The fight led to violent agitations rocking Ka
weeks’ time was set by the Supreme Court to form the Cauver
management board. In 2018, the 
that Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery waters has been reduc
TMC which has been allocated instead to Karnataka. The decision, taken 
by a Bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava 
Roy and A M Khanwilkar
meet the drinking needs of Karnataka and its capital Bengaluru which 
will receive 4 TMC of additional water from Cauvery. The SC declared 
that the decision was take
into account groundwater held below the Cauvery basin in Tamil Nadu 
although the net irrigation area was correctly calculated.
? In its judgment, the Supreme Court had ordered the Centre to formulate a 
"scheme" to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's 
modified by it. The naming of the "scheme" itself raised a political storm, 
especially in the key States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. While the 
former wanted to stick to the Tribunal's order of setting up a Cauvery 
Management Board, the latter opp
with the name Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018.
? As per the gazette notification, the 
Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water 
Regulation Committee (CWRA). 
 
Tamil Nadu. In 2013, Contempt of Court was issued against 
In 2014 Justice Chauhan is Chairman of Cauvery Water Disputes 
Tribunal. In 2015 Karnataka says the flows into the Cauvery basin has 
been drastically less due to the failure of the south-west monsoon in 
Karnataka and Kerala this year. The Supreme Court directs the Karnataka 
government to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil 
Nadu for the next 10 days to ameliorate the plight of farmers for Samba 
. Noting that the samba crops in Tamil Nadu will be adversely 
comprising Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit 
directs Karnataka to ensure supply of water to Tamil Nadu. 
violent agitations rocking Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. S
set by the Supreme Court to form the Cauvery wa
In 2018, the Supreme Court on Friday pronounced 
that Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery waters has been reduced by 14.75 
TMC which has been allocated instead to Karnataka. The decision, taken 
by a Bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava 
Roy and A M Khanwilkar. The amount of water will now be available to 
meet the drinking needs of Karnataka and its capital Bengaluru which 
will receive 4 TMC of additional water from Cauvery. The SC declared 
that the decision was taken considering that the CWDT had failed to take 
into account groundwater held below the Cauvery basin in Tamil Nadu 
although the net irrigation area was correctly calculated.  
the Supreme Court had ordered the Centre to formulate a 
"scheme" to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's 
modified by it. The naming of the "scheme" itself raised a political storm, 
especially in the key States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. While the 
former wanted to stick to the Tribunal's order of setting up a Cauvery 
Management Board, the latter opposed it. The Centre finally settled down 
with the name Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018. 
e gazette notification, the Scheme involves setting up of a 
Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water 
Regulation Committee (CWRA). While the Authority will oversee the 
Tamil Nadu. In 2013, Contempt of Court was issued against 
In 2014 Justice Chauhan is Chairman of Cauvery Water Disputes 
Tribunal. In 2015 Karnataka says the flows into the Cauvery basin has 
west monsoon in 
Karnataka and Kerala this year. The Supreme Court directs the Karnataka 
government to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil 
for Samba 
l Nadu will be adversely 
comprising Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit — 
il Nadu. Six 
y water 
pronounced 
ed by 14.75 
TMC which has been allocated instead to Karnataka. The decision, taken 
by a Bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava 
The amount of water will now be available to 
meet the drinking needs of Karnataka and its capital Bengaluru which 
will receive 4 TMC of additional water from Cauvery. The SC declared 
n considering that the CWDT had failed to take 
into account groundwater held below the Cauvery basin in Tamil Nadu 
the Supreme Court had ordered the Centre to formulate a 
"scheme" to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's order as 
modified by it. The naming of the "scheme" itself raised a political storm, 
especially in the key States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. While the 
former wanted to stick to the Tribunal's order of setting up a Cauvery 
osed it. The Centre finally settled down 
Scheme involves setting up of a 
Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water 
While the Authority will oversee the 
 
storage, apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters, the 
Committee will monitor the daily water levels, inflows and storage 
position at major reservoirs storing the Cauvery water.
Krishna Water Dispute: 
? The Krishna is an east
Maharashtra and merges with the Bay of Bengal, flowing through 
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Together with 
its tributaries, it forms a vast basin that covers 33% of the total area of the 
four states. 
? A dispute over the sharing of Krishna waters has been ongoing for many 
decades, beginning with the erstwhile Hyderabad and Mysore states, and 
later continuing between successors Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra 
Pradesh. 
? In 1969, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was set up under 
the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, and presented its report in 
1973. The report, which was published in 1976, divided the 2060 TMC 
(thousand million cubic feet) of Krishna water at 75 per cent 
dependability into three parts: 560 TMC for Maharashtra, 700 TMC for 
Karnataka and 800 TMC for Andhra Pradesh. At the same time, it was 
stipulated that the KWDT order may be reviewed or revised by a 
competent authority or tribunal any time after May 31, 2000.
? Afterward, as new grievances arose between the states, the second 
KWDT was instituted in 2004. It delivered its report in 2010, which made 
allocations of the Krishna water at 65 per cent dependability and for 
surplus flows as follows: 81 TMC for Maharashtra, 177 TMC for 
Karnataka, and 190 TMC for Andhra Pradesh.
? Soon after the 2010 report was presented, Andhra Pradesh challenged it 
through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in 2011. In an 
order in the same year, the apex court stopped the Centre from publishing 
it in the official Gazette.
? In 2013, the KWDT issued a ‘further report’, which was again challenged 
by Andhra Pradesh in the Supreme Court in 2014. After the creation of 
Telangana from Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the Water Resources Ministry 
has been extending the duration of the KWDT.
 
storage, apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters, the 
Committee will monitor the daily water levels, inflows and storage 
position at major reservoirs storing the Cauvery water. 
he Krishna is an east-flowing river that originates at Mahabaleshwar in 
Maharashtra and merges with the Bay of Bengal, flowing through 
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Together with 
its tributaries, it forms a vast basin that covers 33% of the total area of the 
A dispute over the sharing of Krishna waters has been ongoing for many 
decades, beginning with the erstwhile Hyderabad and Mysore states, and 
later continuing between successors Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra 
In 1969, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was set up under 
State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, and presented its report in 
1973. The report, which was published in 1976, divided the 2060 TMC 
cubic feet) of Krishna water at 75 per cent 
dependability into three parts: 560 TMC for Maharashtra, 700 TMC for 
Karnataka and 800 TMC for Andhra Pradesh. At the same time, it was 
stipulated that the KWDT order may be reviewed or revised by a 
thority or tribunal any time after May 31, 2000. 
Afterward, as new grievances arose between the states, the second 
KWDT was instituted in 2004. It delivered its report in 2010, which made 
of the Krishna water at 65 per cent dependability and for 
surplus flows as follows: 81 TMC for Maharashtra, 177 TMC for 
Karnataka, and 190 TMC for Andhra Pradesh. 
Soon after the 2010 report was presented, Andhra Pradesh challenged it 
through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in 2011. In an 
order in the same year, the apex court stopped the Centre from publishing 
it in the official Gazette.  
he KWDT issued a ‘further report’, which was again challenged 
by Andhra Pradesh in the Supreme Court in 2014. After the creation of 
Telangana from Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the Water Resources Ministry 
has been extending the duration of the KWDT. 
storage, apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters, the 
Committee will monitor the daily water levels, inflows and storage 
that originates at Mahabaleshwar in 
Maharashtra and merges with the Bay of Bengal, flowing through 
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Together with 
its tributaries, it forms a vast basin that covers 33% of the total area of the 
A dispute over the sharing of Krishna waters has been ongoing for many 
decades, beginning with the erstwhile Hyderabad and Mysore states, and 
later continuing between successors Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra 
In 1969, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was set up under 
State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, and presented its report in 
1973. The report, which was published in 1976, divided the 2060 TMC 
dependability into three parts: 560 TMC for Maharashtra, 700 TMC for 
Karnataka and 800 TMC for Andhra Pradesh. At the same time, it was 
stipulated that the KWDT order may be reviewed or revised by a 
Afterward, as new grievances arose between the states, the second 
KWDT was instituted in 2004. It delivered its report in 2010, which made 
of the Krishna water at 65 per cent dependability and for 
surplus flows as follows: 81 TMC for Maharashtra, 177 TMC for 
Soon after the 2010 report was presented, Andhra Pradesh challenged it 
through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in 2011. In an 
order in the same year, the apex court stopped the Centre from publishing 
he KWDT issued a ‘further report’, which was again challenged 
by Andhra Pradesh in the Supreme Court in 2014. After the creation of 
Telangana from Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the Water Resources Ministry 
 
? Andhra Pradesh has since asked that Telangana be included as a separate 
party at the KWDT and that the allocation of Krishna waters be reworked 
among four states, instead of three. It is relying on Section 89 of The 
Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014, whic
“89. The term of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal shall be extended 
with the following terms of reference, namely:
(a) shall make project
been made by a Tribunal constituted under the Inter
Disputes Act, 1956; 
(b) shall determine an operational protocol 
water in the event of deficit flows.
Explanation.–– For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that the 
project-specific awards already made by the Tribunal on or before the 
appointed day shall be binding on the successor
? Maharashtra and Karnataka are now resisting this move. On September 3, 
the two states said: “Telangana was created following bifurcation of Andhra 
Pradesh. Therefore, allocation of water should be from Andhra Pradesh’s 
share which was approved by
 
 
 
esh has since asked that Telangana be included as a separate 
party at the KWDT and that the allocation of Krishna waters be reworked 
among four states, instead of three. It is relying on Section 89 of The 
Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014, which reads: 
“89. The term of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal shall be extended 
ith the following terms of reference, namely: 
(a) shall make project-wise specific allocation, if such allocation has not 
been made by a Tribunal constituted under the Inter-State River Water 
(b) shall determine an operational protocol for project-wise release of 
water in the event of deficit flows. 
For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that the 
specific awards already made by the Tribunal on or before the 
appointed day shall be binding on the successor States.” 
Maharashtra and Karnataka are now resisting this move. On September 3, 
the two states said: “Telangana was created following bifurcation of Andhra 
Pradesh. Therefore, allocation of water should be from Andhra Pradesh’s 
share which was approved by the tribunal.” 
esh has since asked that Telangana be included as a separate 
party at the KWDT and that the allocation of Krishna waters be reworked 
among four states, instead of three. It is relying on Section 89 of The 
 
“89. The term of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal shall be extended 
wise specific allocation, if such allocation has not 
State River Water 
wise release of 
For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that the 
specific awards already made by the Tribunal on or before the 
Maharashtra and Karnataka are now resisting this move. On September 3, 
the two states said: “Telangana was created following bifurcation of Andhra 
Pradesh. Therefore, allocation of water should be from Andhra Pradesh’s 
 
Page 5


 
Cauvery Water Dispute:  
? Cauvery is an inter-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
Bengal. The states concerned 
Puducherry (UT). 
? In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
and British province of Madras.
? In 1924 a new agreement for 50 years i.e. till 1974.
? In 1970, Tamil Nadu 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
Association filed a civil suit in Supreme Court.
? In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal. 
? In 1990, the tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court.
? The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
Karnataka so as to ensure 205 Thousand Million Cubic Feet 
water into Mettur reservoir of Tamil Nadu in a water year (1
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
refused to obey the interim award.
? After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
review petitions in Supreme Court.
? In 2013, the Centre notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
(CMB) with the gazette notification of the final award of the 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
 
Lecture 15.1: 
-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
Bengal. The states concerned are Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and 
In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
and British province of Madras. 
a new agreement for 50 years i.e. till 1974. 
In 1970, Tamil Nadu Government approached to Central Government to 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
Association filed a civil suit in Supreme Court. 
In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal passed an Interim order in 1991 
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
Karnataka so as to ensure 205 Thousand Million Cubic Feet (TMC) of 
water into Mettur reservoir of Tamil Nadu in a water year (1
st
 June to 31st 
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
refused to obey the interim award. 
After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
review petitions in Supreme Court. 
re notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
(CMB) with the gazette notification of the final award of the 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
-State basin having its origin Karnataka and flowing 
through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before out falling in the Bay of 
are Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and 
In 1892, there was an agreement between the princely state of Mysore 
Government approached to Central Government to 
constitute the tribunal and also in the same year Tamil Nadu Farmers 
In 1986, Tamil Nadu again made a formal request to constitute the 
tribunal was set up on the directions of Supreme Court. 
passed an Interim order in 1991 
directing the State of Karnataka to release Water from its reservoirs in 
(TMC) of 
June to 31st 
May) with monthly and weekly stipulations. Karnataka government 
After 16 years of hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal announced its 
final order in 2007 allocating 419 tmcft water to Tamil Nadu (512 
demand) and 270 tmcft to Karnataka (465). Kerala was given 30 tmcft 
and Puducherry got 7 tmc ft. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu filed 
re notified the final award of the CWDT. The 
government was mandated to constitute the Cauvery Management Board 
Tribunal.Karnataka has not accepted the order and refused to release the 
 
water to Tamil Nadu. In 2013, Contempt of Court was issued against 
Karnataka. 
? In 2014 Justice Chauhan is Chairman of Cauvery Water Disputes 
Tribunal. In 2015 Karnataka says the flows into the Cauvery basin has 
been drastically less due to the failure of the south
Karnataka and Kerala this year. The Supreme Court directs the Karnataka 
government to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil 
Nadu for the next 10 days to ameliorate the plight of farmers
cultivation. Noting that the samba crops in Tami
affected, a Bench — comprising Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit 
directs Karnataka to ensure supply of water to Tamil Nadu.
? The fight led to violent agitations rocking Ka
weeks’ time was set by the Supreme Court to form the Cauver
management board. In 2018, the 
that Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery waters has been reduc
TMC which has been allocated instead to Karnataka. The decision, taken 
by a Bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava 
Roy and A M Khanwilkar
meet the drinking needs of Karnataka and its capital Bengaluru which 
will receive 4 TMC of additional water from Cauvery. The SC declared 
that the decision was take
into account groundwater held below the Cauvery basin in Tamil Nadu 
although the net irrigation area was correctly calculated.
? In its judgment, the Supreme Court had ordered the Centre to formulate a 
"scheme" to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's 
modified by it. The naming of the "scheme" itself raised a political storm, 
especially in the key States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. While the 
former wanted to stick to the Tribunal's order of setting up a Cauvery 
Management Board, the latter opp
with the name Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018.
? As per the gazette notification, the 
Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water 
Regulation Committee (CWRA). 
 
Tamil Nadu. In 2013, Contempt of Court was issued against 
In 2014 Justice Chauhan is Chairman of Cauvery Water Disputes 
Tribunal. In 2015 Karnataka says the flows into the Cauvery basin has 
been drastically less due to the failure of the south-west monsoon in 
Karnataka and Kerala this year. The Supreme Court directs the Karnataka 
government to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil 
Nadu for the next 10 days to ameliorate the plight of farmers for Samba 
. Noting that the samba crops in Tamil Nadu will be adversely 
comprising Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit 
directs Karnataka to ensure supply of water to Tamil Nadu. 
violent agitations rocking Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. S
set by the Supreme Court to form the Cauvery wa
In 2018, the Supreme Court on Friday pronounced 
that Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery waters has been reduced by 14.75 
TMC which has been allocated instead to Karnataka. The decision, taken 
by a Bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava 
Roy and A M Khanwilkar. The amount of water will now be available to 
meet the drinking needs of Karnataka and its capital Bengaluru which 
will receive 4 TMC of additional water from Cauvery. The SC declared 
that the decision was taken considering that the CWDT had failed to take 
into account groundwater held below the Cauvery basin in Tamil Nadu 
although the net irrigation area was correctly calculated.  
the Supreme Court had ordered the Centre to formulate a 
"scheme" to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's 
modified by it. The naming of the "scheme" itself raised a political storm, 
especially in the key States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. While the 
former wanted to stick to the Tribunal's order of setting up a Cauvery 
Management Board, the latter opposed it. The Centre finally settled down 
with the name Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018. 
e gazette notification, the Scheme involves setting up of a 
Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water 
Regulation Committee (CWRA). While the Authority will oversee the 
Tamil Nadu. In 2013, Contempt of Court was issued against 
In 2014 Justice Chauhan is Chairman of Cauvery Water Disputes 
Tribunal. In 2015 Karnataka says the flows into the Cauvery basin has 
west monsoon in 
Karnataka and Kerala this year. The Supreme Court directs the Karnataka 
government to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil 
for Samba 
l Nadu will be adversely 
comprising Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit — 
il Nadu. Six 
y water 
pronounced 
ed by 14.75 
TMC which has been allocated instead to Karnataka. The decision, taken 
by a Bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava 
The amount of water will now be available to 
meet the drinking needs of Karnataka and its capital Bengaluru which 
will receive 4 TMC of additional water from Cauvery. The SC declared 
n considering that the CWDT had failed to take 
into account groundwater held below the Cauvery basin in Tamil Nadu 
the Supreme Court had ordered the Centre to formulate a 
"scheme" to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's order as 
modified by it. The naming of the "scheme" itself raised a political storm, 
especially in the key States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. While the 
former wanted to stick to the Tribunal's order of setting up a Cauvery 
osed it. The Centre finally settled down 
Scheme involves setting up of a 
Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water 
While the Authority will oversee the 
 
storage, apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters, the 
Committee will monitor the daily water levels, inflows and storage 
position at major reservoirs storing the Cauvery water.
Krishna Water Dispute: 
? The Krishna is an east
Maharashtra and merges with the Bay of Bengal, flowing through 
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Together with 
its tributaries, it forms a vast basin that covers 33% of the total area of the 
four states. 
? A dispute over the sharing of Krishna waters has been ongoing for many 
decades, beginning with the erstwhile Hyderabad and Mysore states, and 
later continuing between successors Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra 
Pradesh. 
? In 1969, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was set up under 
the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, and presented its report in 
1973. The report, which was published in 1976, divided the 2060 TMC 
(thousand million cubic feet) of Krishna water at 75 per cent 
dependability into three parts: 560 TMC for Maharashtra, 700 TMC for 
Karnataka and 800 TMC for Andhra Pradesh. At the same time, it was 
stipulated that the KWDT order may be reviewed or revised by a 
competent authority or tribunal any time after May 31, 2000.
? Afterward, as new grievances arose between the states, the second 
KWDT was instituted in 2004. It delivered its report in 2010, which made 
allocations of the Krishna water at 65 per cent dependability and for 
surplus flows as follows: 81 TMC for Maharashtra, 177 TMC for 
Karnataka, and 190 TMC for Andhra Pradesh.
? Soon after the 2010 report was presented, Andhra Pradesh challenged it 
through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in 2011. In an 
order in the same year, the apex court stopped the Centre from publishing 
it in the official Gazette.
? In 2013, the KWDT issued a ‘further report’, which was again challenged 
by Andhra Pradesh in the Supreme Court in 2014. After the creation of 
Telangana from Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the Water Resources Ministry 
has been extending the duration of the KWDT.
 
storage, apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters, the 
Committee will monitor the daily water levels, inflows and storage 
position at major reservoirs storing the Cauvery water. 
he Krishna is an east-flowing river that originates at Mahabaleshwar in 
Maharashtra and merges with the Bay of Bengal, flowing through 
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Together with 
its tributaries, it forms a vast basin that covers 33% of the total area of the 
A dispute over the sharing of Krishna waters has been ongoing for many 
decades, beginning with the erstwhile Hyderabad and Mysore states, and 
later continuing between successors Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra 
In 1969, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was set up under 
State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, and presented its report in 
1973. The report, which was published in 1976, divided the 2060 TMC 
cubic feet) of Krishna water at 75 per cent 
dependability into three parts: 560 TMC for Maharashtra, 700 TMC for 
Karnataka and 800 TMC for Andhra Pradesh. At the same time, it was 
stipulated that the KWDT order may be reviewed or revised by a 
thority or tribunal any time after May 31, 2000. 
Afterward, as new grievances arose between the states, the second 
KWDT was instituted in 2004. It delivered its report in 2010, which made 
of the Krishna water at 65 per cent dependability and for 
surplus flows as follows: 81 TMC for Maharashtra, 177 TMC for 
Karnataka, and 190 TMC for Andhra Pradesh. 
Soon after the 2010 report was presented, Andhra Pradesh challenged it 
through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in 2011. In an 
order in the same year, the apex court stopped the Centre from publishing 
it in the official Gazette.  
he KWDT issued a ‘further report’, which was again challenged 
by Andhra Pradesh in the Supreme Court in 2014. After the creation of 
Telangana from Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the Water Resources Ministry 
has been extending the duration of the KWDT. 
storage, apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters, the 
Committee will monitor the daily water levels, inflows and storage 
that originates at Mahabaleshwar in 
Maharashtra and merges with the Bay of Bengal, flowing through 
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Together with 
its tributaries, it forms a vast basin that covers 33% of the total area of the 
A dispute over the sharing of Krishna waters has been ongoing for many 
decades, beginning with the erstwhile Hyderabad and Mysore states, and 
later continuing between successors Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra 
In 1969, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was set up under 
State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, and presented its report in 
1973. The report, which was published in 1976, divided the 2060 TMC 
dependability into three parts: 560 TMC for Maharashtra, 700 TMC for 
Karnataka and 800 TMC for Andhra Pradesh. At the same time, it was 
stipulated that the KWDT order may be reviewed or revised by a 
Afterward, as new grievances arose between the states, the second 
KWDT was instituted in 2004. It delivered its report in 2010, which made 
of the Krishna water at 65 per cent dependability and for 
surplus flows as follows: 81 TMC for Maharashtra, 177 TMC for 
Soon after the 2010 report was presented, Andhra Pradesh challenged it 
through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in 2011. In an 
order in the same year, the apex court stopped the Centre from publishing 
he KWDT issued a ‘further report’, which was again challenged 
by Andhra Pradesh in the Supreme Court in 2014. After the creation of 
Telangana from Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the Water Resources Ministry 
 
? Andhra Pradesh has since asked that Telangana be included as a separate 
party at the KWDT and that the allocation of Krishna waters be reworked 
among four states, instead of three. It is relying on Section 89 of The 
Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014, whic
“89. The term of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal shall be extended 
with the following terms of reference, namely:
(a) shall make project
been made by a Tribunal constituted under the Inter
Disputes Act, 1956; 
(b) shall determine an operational protocol 
water in the event of deficit flows.
Explanation.–– For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that the 
project-specific awards already made by the Tribunal on or before the 
appointed day shall be binding on the successor
? Maharashtra and Karnataka are now resisting this move. On September 3, 
the two states said: “Telangana was created following bifurcation of Andhra 
Pradesh. Therefore, allocation of water should be from Andhra Pradesh’s 
share which was approved by
 
 
 
esh has since asked that Telangana be included as a separate 
party at the KWDT and that the allocation of Krishna waters be reworked 
among four states, instead of three. It is relying on Section 89 of The 
Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014, which reads: 
“89. The term of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal shall be extended 
ith the following terms of reference, namely: 
(a) shall make project-wise specific allocation, if such allocation has not 
been made by a Tribunal constituted under the Inter-State River Water 
(b) shall determine an operational protocol for project-wise release of 
water in the event of deficit flows. 
For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that the 
specific awards already made by the Tribunal on or before the 
appointed day shall be binding on the successor States.” 
Maharashtra and Karnataka are now resisting this move. On September 3, 
the two states said: “Telangana was created following bifurcation of Andhra 
Pradesh. Therefore, allocation of water should be from Andhra Pradesh’s 
share which was approved by the tribunal.” 
esh has since asked that Telangana be included as a separate 
party at the KWDT and that the allocation of Krishna waters be reworked 
among four states, instead of three. It is relying on Section 89 of The 
 
“89. The term of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal shall be extended 
wise specific allocation, if such allocation has not 
State River Water 
wise release of 
For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that the 
specific awards already made by the Tribunal on or before the 
Maharashtra and Karnataka are now resisting this move. On September 3, 
the two states said: “Telangana was created following bifurcation of Andhra 
Pradesh. Therefore, allocation of water should be from Andhra Pradesh’s 
 
 
Politicisation of tribunals: 
Srinivas Chokkakula remarks that
politics, a transition from a single party
Regional political forces have grown stronger and assertive. The growing nexus 
between water and politics have transformed the disputes into turfs of vote bank 
politics. Inter-state water disputes have turned into promising avenues for 
political mobilisation. This politicisation has also led to increasing defiance by 
states, extended litigations and subversion of resolution mechanisms.
Two, there has been a striking difference in the form and substance of 
adjudication by tribunals between the two generations. While formulating the 
Interstate (River) Water Disputes Act, 1956, the parliamentarians have preferred 
adjudication by tribunals with an explicit int
states—as in courts—which would prolong the outcomes.
what has turned out to be with the second generation of tribunals
like courts now as pointed out by the late Fali Nariman. 
Inter-state River Water Dispute (Amendment) Bill
The inter-state river water disputes have been 
The Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation 
had identified five major causes for the delays: (a) 
adjudication as the central government kept extending tenure of the tribunals 
indefinitely, even though they were to resolve disputes within 5 years (b) 
limit for publishing the report
of the chairperson or other members
Justice of India to nominate a person
considerable delays and (e) absence of data
? The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was 
introduced in Lok Sabha on Ju
Mr. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat. It amends the Inter
Disputes Act, 1956.  The Act provides for the adjudication of disputes 
relating to waters of inter
? Under the Act, a state government may request the central government to 
refer an inter-state river dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication. If the 
 
 
Srinivas Chokkakula remarks that the 1980s mark a watershed in Indian 
politics, a transition from a single party-dominant politics to coalitional politics. 
Regional political forces have grown stronger and assertive. The growing nexus 
olitics have transformed the disputes into turfs of vote bank 
state water disputes have turned into promising avenues for 
This politicisation has also led to increasing defiance by 
states, extended litigations and subversion of resolution mechanisms.
a striking difference in the form and substance of 
adjudication by tribunals between the two generations. While formulating the 
Interstate (River) Water Disputes Act, 1956, the parliamentarians have preferred 
adjudication by tribunals with an explicit intent to avoid litigation between 
which would prolong the outcomes. Ironically, that is 
what has turned out to be with the second generation of tribunals; they function 
like courts now as pointed out by the late Fali Nariman.  
state River Water Dispute (Amendment) Bill, 2019:  
state river water disputes have been known for lingering for years. 
The Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation 
had identified five major causes for the delays: (a) no strict time limit for 
he central government kept extending tenure of the tribunals 
indefinitely, even though they were to resolve disputes within 5 years (b) 
limit for publishing the report of a tribunal (c) no upper limit for retirement 
of the chairperson or other members (d) in case of any vacancy, the Chief 
Justice of India to nominate a person which took time and caused 
absence of data on river basins. 
State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was 
introduced in Lok Sabha on July 25, 2019 by the Minister of Jal Shakti, 
Mr. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat. It amends the Inter-State River Water 
The Act provides for the adjudication of disputes 
relating to waters of inter-state rivers and river valleys.   
t, a state government may request the central government to 
state river dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication. If the 
1980s mark a watershed in Indian 
dominant politics to coalitional politics. 
Regional political forces have grown stronger and assertive. The growing nexus 
olitics have transformed the disputes into turfs of vote bank 
state water disputes have turned into promising avenues for 
This politicisation has also led to increasing defiance by 
states, extended litigations and subversion of resolution mechanisms. 
a striking difference in the form and substance of 
adjudication by tribunals between the two generations. While formulating the 
Interstate (River) Water Disputes Act, 1956, the parliamentarians have preferred 
ent to avoid litigation between 
Ironically, that is 
; they function 
known for lingering for years. 
The Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation 
no strict time limit for 
he central government kept extending tenure of the tribunals 
indefinitely, even though they were to resolve disputes within 5 years (b) no 
no upper limit for retirement 
the Chief 
State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was 
ly 25, 2019 by the Minister of Jal Shakti, 
State River Water 
The Act provides for the adjudication of disputes 
t, a state government may request the central government to 
state river dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication. If the