"Mekedatu dam proposal reignites Cauvery inter-state water dispute"
Upper riparian state
a state located upstream on a shared river, here Karnataka on the Cauvery.
Lower riparian state
a state located downstream, here Tamil Nadu, dependent on upstream releases.
The Cauvery river originates in the Kodagu district of Karnataka and flows through Tamil Nadu before emptying into the Bay of Bengal, making Karnataka the upper riparian state and Tamil Nadu the lower riparian state. Water-sharing arrangements date to colonial-era agreements of 1892 and 1924 — the latter signed between the Madras Presidency and the Princely State of Mysore — which governed irrigation expansion for both parties. The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which redrew state boundaries along linguistic lines, intensified the political stakes of river allocation by creating new administrative identities around the same contested resource.
The constitutional framework for resolving such disputes rests on Article 262 of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication of inter-state river water disputes and, critically, bars the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in matters so referred. Parliament enacted the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act (ISRWDA), 1956 under this authority. It is important not to confuse Article 262 (inter-state water disputes) with Article 263 (Inter-State Council), a distinction UPSC tests regularly. When the 1924 agreement lapsed in 1974, Karnataka began constructing new reservoirs to expand irrigation, triggering a fresh dispute that eventually led Tamil Nadu to demand a formal tribunal.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) was constituted in 1990 under the ISRWDA and delivered its final award on February 5, 2007, after 17 years of hearings. The Supreme Court's 2018 judgment subsequently modified the award and directed the constitution of two permanent oversight bodies: the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC).
The CWDT's 2007 award allocated the Cauvery's utilisable yield of 740 TMC (thousand million cubic feet) as follows: 419 TMC to Tamil Nadu, 270 TMC to Karnataka, 30 TMC to Kerala, 7 TMC to Puducherry, and 14 TMC reserved for environmental flows. Karnataka was also required to release 192 TMC annually to Tamil Nadu at the Biligundlu gauging station, with monthly schedules specified for normal monsoon years. In distress years, allocations were to be proportionately reduced among all parties.
Both states challenged the award in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's landmark judgment of February 16, 2018, delivered by a three-judge bench, increased Karnataka's share to 284.75 TMC (an increase of 14.75 TMC ft), reducing Tamil Nadu's share to 404.25 TMC while compensating Tamil Nadu with the right to extract 10 TMC of groundwater. The shares of Kerala and Puducherry remained unchanged. The Court emphasised that Karnataka's drinking water requirements must be placed on a higher pedestal than irrigation needs — a principle that Karnataka now invokes to justify the Mekedatu project. …
Which of the following Protected Areas are located in Cauvery basin?
1.Nagarhole National Park
2.Papikonda National Park
3.Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve
4.Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
With reference to the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) award of 2007, which of the following statements is/are correct?
1.The total utilisable yield of the Cauvery allocated among the parties was 740 TMC.
2.Karnataka was awarded a larger share than Tamil Nadu under the 2007 award.
3.The award reserved 14 TMC for environmental protection.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Which of the following correctly describes the constitutional provision governing inter-state river water disputes in India?
Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment on the Cauvery water dispute:
1.The Court increased Karnataka's share from 270 TMC to 284.75 TMC.
2.Tamil Nadu was compensated for the reduction in its surface water share by being permitted to extract 10 TMC of groundwater.
3.The Court directed the constitution of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC).
Which of the above statements are correct?
Which of the following institutions were specifically directed to be constituted by the Supreme Court in its 2018 judgment on the Cauvery water dispute?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account