PANCHANPUR ROAD - GAYA - 824236 (BIHAR)

SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PROJECT WORK

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTE OF CAUVERY RIVER

Under The Supervision of: MRS Poonam kumari.

Assistant Professor
School of Law & Governance
Central University of South Bihar

Submitted By:-

ROUSHAN KUMAR

B.A.LL.B (Hons.)
3rd semester 2018-2023
Enrollment: - CUSB1813125083
 PREFACE

As a part of the LL.B. Curriculum (as prescribed by The Bar Council of India) and
in order to gain practical cum research knowledge in the field of law, I’m required
to make a project report on prescribed topic as per given by the authority (teacher).
Here, I have got the topic
“IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTE OF CAUVERY RIVER". I required to make a
project on the specified topic. The Basic Objectives behind doing this project report
s to get knowledge tools of the term and consequences of In the matter of dispute of
Cauvery River.

In this project report I have included various concepts, effects, methodology and
analyses In the matter of dispute of Cauvery River.

Doing this Project report helped me to enhance my knowledge regarding the

endorsement and implications of applying and in understanding In the matter of
Cauvery river dispute.
 Acknowledgement

I, Roushan Kumar, take extreme pleasure in expressing my profound

gratitude toward my constitution teacher (Mrs. Poonam kumari assistant
professor school of law and governance) for inspiring me and giving me the
invaluable guidance and constant support throughout the course of my project
work. I have taken efforts in this kind project. However, it would not have
been possible without the kind support of my teacher, friends, colleagues and
many more individual persons, writers, college staffs, librarians and other
sources of e-resource. I would like to sincere thanks to all of them.

I thanks to my brother Mr. Ravi Kumar for inspiring and supporting me

throughout the project.

I also thank my parents for providing me everything whatever be required

for the completion of this project.

Finally, I would like to thanks all Kith & Kins who are a little bit part in
helping me for this kind project.

Roushan Kumar

B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)- 3nd Sem.

CUSB1813125083

School of law and governance.

 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology used by me is completely Doctrinal Research Method.

I had also followed the steps provided by my subject teacher for doing my
Research/Project Work. This project work is all about In the matter of Cauvery river
dispute.
 Table of Content
S.NO Chapter Page

1. 6
Introduction

2. 7 to 10
History of the dispute

3.
The constitution of the tribunal 10

4. 11 to 12
Constitution of the CRA
5. Verdict of the CWDT 12 to 13

6. 14 to 16
Case supreme court of India

7.
Judgement 17

8.
My opinion 18

9.
Conclusion 19

10.
Bibliography 20
 INTRODUCTION

The river Cauvery is one of the seven major rivers of India. It is the fourth largest river in
peninsular southern India after the Godavari, the Krishna and the Mahanadi. The river Cauvery is
a unique gift of the Western Ghats to peninsular Southern India. It forms the economic lifeline for
the people of southern India. The industrial and agricultural prosperity of Karnataka and Tamil
Nadu could be attributed mainly to the perenial flow of the Cauvery. The river Cauvery is famous
for its traditional sanity, unique scenery and its utility for irrigation. The Cauvery is known as the
"Dakshina Ganga" or Ganges or "Bhagirathi of South India". It is one of the seven sacred rivers of
India. In Kodagu district, Cauvery is considered and worshipped as "Nada or Kula Devote"
(Guardian deity). The whole of its long journey is considered as holy ground. In both Karnataka
and Tamil Nadu the river Cauvery has been the subject of Myth and Legend and has been
celebrated in music, poetry, literature and folklore. A number of ancient temples along the river
testifies to its religious and cultural significance. The river Cauvery is an inter-state river. All the
four basin states namely Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry and Kerala have an interest in the
sharing of its water.

ORIGIN AND LENGTH OF RIVER CAUVERY

The magnificent river Cauvery takes its birth at "Talacauvery" in the Brahmagiri range of hills, in
the Western Ghats in the Coorg or Kodagu district of Karnataka, at an elevation of 341m above
main sea level. The total length of the river is 802 Km. Its total length in the Coorg district is about
80 Km. The river Cauvery flows for a length of 381 Km, in Karnataka, before reaching Karnataka
and Tamil Nadu border. The boundary formed by river Cauvery between Karnataka and Tamil
Nadu is about 64 Km. The river travels a further distance of about 357 Km in Tamil Nadu before
joining the Bay of Bengal1.* Cauvery has 21 Principal tributaries. Of these 9 are located wholly
or largely in Karnataka and 12 in Tamil Nadu. The course of the river Cauvery, its tributaries and
reservoirs in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are illustrated in the Cauvery river basin map2.

1
Statement of fact of the state of Karnataka 1990
2
Map : Cauvery river basin
 History of the dispute

The British were controlling both the Mysore and Madras for a short period in the middle of the
19th century. During their regime, many plans were drawn up for the utilization of the Kaveri
waters by both states. On that time the Mysore state was the princely state whereas the madras was
the presidency of British. During the 1870s decade the drought and famine occur huge due to this
the plan was affected. The plans were revived by Mysore in 1881, by which time Mysore was back
in the hands of the Mysore kings, while present day Tamil Nadu continued to remain a part of the
Madras Presidency. Mysore plan was making the irrigation and dam project for the fulfillment of
water purpose but due to the huge resistance from the Madras Presidency the plan did not work.
Mysore state made are presentation to the then British government; as a result of which, a
conference was held in 1890 with the objective of agreeing "…on the principles of a modus
vivendi, which would on the one hand allow to Mysore reasonable freedom in dealing with her
irrigation works, and on the other, give to Madras practical security against injury to her interests"
3
and eventually the Agreement of 1892 was signed. In this agreement no new irrigation or
reservoir can be constructed by the Mysore state without the prior permission of the madras
presidency. Karnataka deems this agreement as having been between unequal partners because,
while Mysore state was a princely state, Madras formed a part of the British Raj. Karnataka also
considers this agreement to have been severely opposed to its interests as it gave sweeping powers
and prescriptive rights to Madras, the lower riparian state. As per this agreement, Mysore was
required to obtain Madras' consent for any new irrigation reservoirs across any of the main rivers
it wished to utilize and share information on any new irrigation scheme it wished to undertake to
utilize the waters Things came to a head in 1910 when Mysore, under Nalvadi Krishna raja
Wodeyar as the king and Sir. M.Visvesvaraya 4 as Chief Engineer came up with a plan to construct
a dam at Kannambadi village to hold up to 41.5 TMC of water. The dam was planned to be built
in two stages. In the first stage a capacity of 11 TMC was speculate, while in the second stage the
full capacity was set to be realized. Madras however, refused to give its consent for this move as
it had its own plans to build a storage dam at Mettur with a capacity of 80 TMC. After a reference

3
Full test of the agreement 1892
4
Op. cit p 283
to the Government of India, permission was accorded to Mysore, but for a reduced storage of
11TMC. During construction, however, the foundation was laid to suit the earlier desired full
storage. This raised Madras' hackles and the dispute continued. As a result, the then British
Government of India referred the matter to arbitration under Rule IV of the 1892 Agreement. The
Kaveri dispute thus had come up for arbitration for the first time. Sir H D Griffin was appointed
arbitrator and M. Nethersole, the Inspector General of Irrigation in India, was made the Assessor.
They entered into proceedings on 16 July 1913 and the Award was given on 12 May 1914. The
award upheld the earlier decision of the Government of India and allowed Mysore to go ahead
with the construction of the dam up to 11 TMC. The agreement also stipulated that Mysore was
not to increase its area under irrigation more than 110,000 acres (450 km2) beyond what was
already existing, while the same cap for Madras Presidency was pegged at 301000|acre|km2.
Nonetheless, Madras still appealed against the award and negotiations continued. Eventually an
agreement was arrived at in 1924 and a couple of minor agreements were also signed in 1929 and
1933. The 1924 agreement was set to lapse after a run of 50 years. As a result of these agreements,
Karnataka claims that Mysore was forced to give up rights. The main clause of the 1924 agreement
are Mysore government may construct KRS 5 reservoir to a height of 124 ft above the river bed
and to an effective capacity of 44.827 TMC ft to irrigate 1.25 lakh acres. Mysore government agree
to regulate discharges through and from KRS reservoir strictly in accordance with the rules and
regulation which form part of the agreement. There was 15 point formula of this agreement.75
percent of water consist Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, 23 percent to Karnataka and remaining go
to Kerala.

Post-independence developments

In 1947, India won independence from the British. This changed the equations drastically. Tamil
Nadu was carved out of the Madras Presidency and Mysore became a state. Further in 1956 6, the
reorganization of the states of India took place and state boundaries were redrawn based on
linguistic demographics. Kodagu or Coorg (the birthplace of the Kaveri), became a part of Mysore
state. Huge parts of erstwhile Hyderabad State and Bombay Presidency joined with Mysore state.

5
C.G barber history history of Cauvery mettur project
6
Inter water dispute act 1956
Parts of Malabar which earlier formed part of Madras Presidency went to Kerala. Puducherry had
already become a de facto Union territory in 1954. All these changes further changed the equations
as Kerala and Puducherry also jumped into the fray. Kerala staked its claim as one of the major
tributaries of the Kaveri, the Kabini, now originated in Kerala. The Karaikal region of Puducherry
at the tail end of the river demanded the waters that it had always used for drinking and some
minimal agriculture. While these additional claims complicated matters greatly at a technical level,
Mysore state and Tamil Nadu still remained the major parties to the dispute. By the late 1960s,
both states and the Central government began to realize the gravity of the situation as the 50 year
run of the 1924 agreement was soon coming to an end. Negotiations were started in right earnest
and discussions continued for almost 10 years.

1974

In 1974 the 50 year completed the agreement of 1924. Karnataka followed a system releases based
on seasonal condition, irrigation need and capacity of water in KRS and in the new reservoir like
Kabini (1975), the Hemavathy and the Harangi (1979). Responding to Tamilnadu plea, Karnataka
made supplement releases, Karnataka demanded supply of power from Tamilnadu as equivalent
to the quantity of water released as a result the development of Cauvery water dispute occur
between Karnataka and Tamilnadu. In 1974 the Bengaluru become the metropolitan city the
population also increased very much and due to the process of industrial and other purposes there
was much needed of water in Bengaluru.

1980s

Later Tamil Nadu withdrew its case demanding the constitution of a tribunal and the two states
started negotiating again. Several rounds of discussions were held in the 1980s. The result was
still, a stalemate. In 1986, a farmer’s association from Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme
Court demanding the constitution of a tribunal. While this case was still pending, the two states
continued many rounds of talks. This continued till April 1990 and yet yielded no results. The
many demonstration, riot happen in both the state. Many people died and wounded in this
demonstration.
 The constitution of the tribunal

The Supreme Court then directed the government headed by Prime Minister V. P. Singh to
constitute a tribunal and refer all disputes to it. A three man tribunal was thus constituted on 2 June
19907. The tribunal was headquartered at New Delhi and was to be headed by Justice Chittatosh
Mukherjee. The four states presented their demands to the tribunal as under

• Karnataka - claimed 465 billion ft³ (13 km³) as its share

• Kerala - claimed 99.8 billion ft³ (2.83 km³) as its share

• Puducherry - claimed 9.3 billion ft³ (0.3 km³)

• Tamil Nadu - claimed the flows should be ensured in accordance with the terms of the agreements
of 1892 and 1924 (i.e., 566 billion ft³ (16 km³) for Tamil Nadu and Puducherry; 177 billion ft³ (5
km³) for Karnataka and 5 billion ft³ (0.1 km³) for Kerala).

25 June 1991

CWDT passes an interim award asking Karnataka to release 205 TMC ft. of water to Tamil Nadu
every year. It also directed Karnataka not increase its irrigated land area from the existing 1,
20,000acre (4500km).

As a result widespread dissatisfaction and violence in the two states.

7
Report of CWDT 1990
 Constitution of the CRA

Karnataka had all through maintained that the interim award was not 'scientific' and was inherently
flawed. It had, nevertheless, complied with the order except during 1995–96 when rains failed.
What complicated matters was that the Interim award was ambiguous on distress sharing and there
was no clear cut formula that everyone agreed upon to share the waters in the case of failure of the
monsoon. In 1997, the Government proposed the setting up of a Cauvery River Authority which
would be vested with far reaching powers to ensure the implementation of the Interim Order. These
powers included the power to take over the control of dams in the event of the Interim Order not
being honored. Karnataka, which had always maintained that the interim order had no scientific
basis and was intrinsically flawed, strongly protested the proposal to set up such an authority. The
Government then made several modifications to the powers of the Authority and came up with a
new proposal. The new proposal greatly reduced the executive powers of the Authority. The power
to take over control of dams was also done away with. Under this new proposal, the Government
set up two new bodies, viz., Cauvery River Authority and Cauvery Monitoring Committee. The
Cauvery River Authority would consist of the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers of all four
states (Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Kerala) and was headquartered in New Delhi. The
Cauvery Monitoring Committee on the other hand, was an expert body which consisted of
engineers, technocrats and other officers who would take stock of the 'ground realities' and report
to the government. CRA meeting and the Supreme Court order a meeting of the Cauvery River
Authority was called on 27 August but the Karnataka chief minister walked out of the meeting.
The focus now shifted to the Supreme Court which ordered Karnataka to release 1.25 billion ft³ of
water every day unless the Cauvery River Authority revised it. Karnataka started the release of
water but pressed for another meeting of the Cauvery River Authority which was fixed for 8
September. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister this time boycotted the meet citing insufficient notice
as the reason. A minister from her cabinet, however represented Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery River
Authority revised the Court's order from 1.25 billion ft³ to 0.8 billion ft³ per day. This time
however, the Karnataka government in open defiance of the order of the Cauvery River Authority,
refused to release any water succumbing to the large scale protests that had mounted in the Kaveri
districts of the state. Tamil Nadu aghast at the defiance, went back to the Supreme Court.
Karnataka now resumed the release of water for a few days, but stopped it again on 18 September
as a protesting farmer committed suicide by jumping into the reservoir and the protests threatened
to take a dangerous turn. The center now stepped in and asked Karnataka to release the water. The
Supreme Court meanwhile, in response to Tamil Nadu's petition asked the Cauvery River
Authority for details of the water release and water levels in the reservoirs. The Cauvery River
Authority in turn ordered inspections of the reservoirs. While the Cauvery River Authority
inspected the reservoirs in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu (on 23 September) flatly refused to grant them
permission to inspect its reservoirs. This move by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, coupled with her
earlier walkout and boycott of the Cauvery River Authority meetings, came in for severe criticism
from all quarters. On 30 September the Supreme Court ordered Tamil Nadu to co-operate with the
Cauvery river authority.

2007

In 2007 the Cauvery water dispute tribunal (CWDT) gave its final judgment under which it allotted
the total availability of water in the river at 40 TMC in normal year. The same was distributed all
the parties as follows:

(1) Tamil Nadu : 419 TMC (which has demanded 512 TMC)
(2) Karnataka : 270 TMC (which has demanded 465 TMC)
(3) Kerala : 30 TMC
(4) Puducherry : 7 TMC

In addition of allocating 726 TMC to four states, the tribunal also reserved 10 TMC for
environmental purposes and 4 TMC inevitable outlets into the sea.
2012

During the regime of UPA 2 the Cauvery river authority under the chairmanship of Prime Minister
Dr. Man Mohan Singh asked Karnataka government to release 9000 cusecs of water daily to the
state of Tamil Nadu. After this the Karnataka government failed to do so or comply with this order.
The Tamil Nadu state approaches to the Supreme Court than Supreme Court which asked
Karnataka to release water. Finally Karnataka releases water. Due to this decision of Karnataka
government the violent protest occur in the state of Karnataka8.

2013

Tamil Nadu moves the Supreme Court seeking direction to the water ministry for constitution of
the Cauvery management board. Tamil Nadu seeking damages 2480 crore in damages from
Karnataka for not following the order of CWDT.

2016

In 2016 the Tamil Nadu government again moved to the Supreme Court in august 2016 to seeking
release of water as per guidelines of Cauvery tribunal. Supreme Court announced its verdict asking
the Karnataka to release 15000 cusecs of water to its neighboring state for 10 days and after
reviewing its previous order Supreme Court ordered the Karnataka government to release 12000
cusec of water to Tamil Nadu.

In 2018 9 the Supreme Court give its final verdict.

8
Cauvery water dispute case 19th October 2016
9
Study iq
 Supreme court of India

The state of Karnataka by its chief (Appellant) vs state of Tamil Nadu by its chief
(Respondent).AIR1992 SC 52210, JT 1991 (4) SC 361, 1991 (2) SCALE 1049, 1991 SCR497

Jurisdiction – Civil appellate, civil appeal no 2453 of 2007.

Bench for this case – Chief justice of India Deepak Mishra, and justice A M Khanwilkar and
Justice Amitava Roy.

Fact of the case – In 1892 the agreement between Mysore state and madras presidency held in this
agreement the Mysore need permission from madras to build reservoir or dam. In 1924 the
agreement was 15 point as Mysore state may construct reservoir at the height of 124ft above bed
and 44.827 TMC of water can be used. 75 percent of water were used by Tamil Nadu and 23
percent were used by Karnataka and rest Kerala.in 1974 the agreement finished the Karnataka state
used more water due to this Tamil Nadu opposed for this decision of Karnataka .Later Cauvery
water dispute tribunal was established to sort out the problem. In 1991 CWDT asking Karnataka
to release 205 TMC ft. water every year and not to increase the irrigated land are 1,20,000acre
(4500km).The dispute remain continue between them.in 2007 CWDT gives its final judgement
that 419 TMC of water to the Tamil Nadu 270 TMC to the Karnataka 30 TMC to the Kerala and
7 TMC to the Puducherry. The dispute remain continue in 2013 Tamil Nadu moves to supreme
court and seeking that Karnataka is not following the decision of CWDT and Tamil Nadu claim
2480 crore rupee from Karnataka . Later this cases moved to Supreme Court. In 2018 Supreme
Court gives its final verdict.

Issue raised in this case – The dispute of Cauvery River for the maximum utility of water sharing
by state of Karnataka and state of Tamil Nadu.

10
AIR 1992 SC 522
Plea given by appellant.

The plea given by Karnataka side that the Bengaluru is the famous city of India due to the rapid
industrialization and modernization process the population of the city increasing day by day. There
is much needed of water for the survival of city. The other plea given by Karnataka side as follows,

1. There is low monsoon in Karnataka so low flow in Cauvery water is not enough for their
own farmer and their livelihood.
2. There is very unstable political situation in Karnataka with changing of 3 chief minister.
There is huge protest by the farmers and other associations.
3. There are many farmer whose livelihood is associated with this river due to the water of
Cauvery the crop increases.
4. The Cauvery is very sensitive issue nobody wants to give it up easily.
5. The Karnataka claim that tribunal award is a purported award and not the final one so it
has every one right to appeal against it.
6. There is huge amount of ground water that is present to the Tamil Nadu land whereas there
is no much ground water present in Karnataka land.

After hearing the plea of appellant the respondent that is Tamil Nadu side give their plea.

Plea by Tamil Nadu side.

1. The Samba crop growers are mainly dependent on Cauvery River. Irrigation is the
main water source in the area for the growing of samba crops. So the livelihood of
 samba crop farmer is danger. The government not wanting to notify the final order of
Cauvery water dispute tribunal (CWDT) is also agitating as there seem to be no end of
the problem of Cauvery water dispute.
2. The government replied that it will notify the CWDT tribunal award by December end,
but it has not done so. The reason is still not known (may be political).tribunal award
the issue has been politically and legally entailed for the past 5 year.
3. There is effect of farmer and society due to the dispute of Cauvery River.
4. There be an unjust political situation and violated protest also happen in the state.
5. The plea of inter-state water dispute act 1956.

Argument

The state of Karnataka given the Thetis that the population of Bengaluru and its nearby area is
increase rapidly due to rapid industrialization and modernization there is much needed of water
for their livelihood. The other Thetis given that there is no much ground water present in the state
of Karnataka and monsoon is also not working successfully whereas the ground water of Tamil
Nadu is sufficient for the agriculture purpose. There is much violent protest occur in the state the
several kannad organization calls the Karnataka bandh protest against the release of Cauvery water
release. The drought and famine also occur in year. There is no river in Bengaluru under 100 Km.
there are some lake in Bengaluru but due to water pollution the lake is being died. The people of
Bengaluru largely depend on Cauvery River.

The respondent given the Thetis that the farmer of Tamil Nadu is much dependent on the Cauvery
River. The GDP of Tamil Nadu is dependent on the Cauvery River because the region of Cauvery
River is much fertile land productive land. The monsoon is also not working in the Tamil Nadu
properly. There is much loss of public property and many people died in the violence protest and
situation of unjust political situation occur in the state. The state of Karnataka did not follow the
decision of tribunal due to this there is a loss of Tamil Nadu revenue. From madras institute of
development studies Tamil Nadu said that there is increasing level of water pollution in Tamil
Nadu of report India water portal in December 2011.the respondent gives the Thetis of inter-state
water dispute act 1956.
 JUDGEMENT

In February 2018 the Supreme Court gives its final verdict. The bench of Deepak Mishra, A.M
khanwilkar and Amitava Roy gives the final judgement. The Supreme Court declare Cauvery as a
national asset and said that the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu interest is associated with the interest
of India. After listening the argument of both appellant and respondent the Supreme Court on15
February 2018 allocating more water to the state of Karnataka. The final allocation for a total 740
11
TMC is: Karnataka 284.75(270+14.75) TMC. Tamil Nadu404.25 (419-14.75) TMC. Court
awards 14.75TMC more to Karnataka directed to release 177.25TMCft at billigundlu point. The
court held that Bengaluru had attained the global status and its drinking water requirement had
increased multifold. The tribunal did not consider the growing needs of Bengaluru and thought the
city could make to do with its 60 percent groundwater supply. But the groundwater had dried up
with the increasing population of the city. The court allocate 4.75 TMC to Bengaluru. On the other
hand the court rejected an argument by the center that section 6A of 1956.it said that the argument
did not stand to reason and a scheme had to be framed under section 6A as per the tribunal award.
The court said that subject to the formulation of a scheme, the water allocation agreement should
stand unchanged for the next 15 years. The tribunal had drastically reduced the share of Karnataka
towards the domestic and industrial purpose for the reason being that only one third of the city of
Bengaluru falls within the river basin and also on the presumption that 50% of the drinking water
requirement would be met from ground water supply. The tribunal ignore the basic principal
related to drinking water and is unsustainable. The newly formed state never be lied the agreement
of 1892 and 1924 after the Reorganization act 1956.both the agreement remained in force despite
coming into the effect of the reorganization act 1956.we do not find any adverse approach in the
tribunal finding with regard to be allocation of water for domestic and industrial purposes in the
state of Tamil Nadu. So same requirement is not there. The court allocate 30 TMC to Kerala, 7
TMC to the union territory Puducherry and 10 TMC for environmental protection.4 TMC
inevitable wastage into sea.

11
The hindu.com 17th February 2018
 MY OPINION

The verdict which has been given by the Supreme Court is not much satisfactory. The Supreme
Court argument that the Bengaluru is the famous city. The water is much requirement for the city
but there is no any river around 100 km of Bengaluru city. The water of Cauvery and many river
supply through a sewage system and due to sewage system lots of money is cost for its construction
there are lakes in Bengaluru but due to rapid pollution the lakes is also dying. The population of
Bengaluru is increasing rapidly.it is predicted that in 2025 the population of Bengaluru city will
cross 10 million. Indian institute of science given report that after 2025 the Bengaluru city will not
well place to live due to heavy population and pollution. The other problem is that the farmer of
Karnataka protest against its own government. The reason given by many farmer association that
Karnataka government is biased for distribution of water. The government releases more water to
the Bengaluru whereas there is no much water in our agriculture process.so there is crisis for our
livlehood.in Bengaluru there is no rain harvesting system so in the period of monsoon the raining
water wastes. There is no consumption of raining water. The solution is that the Karnataka
government should invest for consumption of rain water.so the water can be save for farmers of
Karnataka. On the other hand the Tamil Nadu farmer is doing an agriculture from historical period
the southern part of Tamil Nadu is mostly depend on Cauvery River. The maximum farmer
livelihoods depend upon this river many farmer suicide due to dispute of Cauvery River. Cauvery
River gets both southwest and northeast monsoons. Karnataka dominated to southeast monsoon
whereas the Tamil Nadu dominated the northeast monsoon. This also effect the Tamil Nadu
farmers. Tamil Nadu farmers have lost an entire crop season to the Cauvery River. Due to the slow
flow of water the farmer has lost.
 Conclusion

The dispute of Cauvery Water River is historical. This dispute is between Karnataka and Tamil
Nadu.in 1924 the agreement between Mysore and Tamil Nadu was sign.in 1974 the dispute
became widespread many protest and violence happen in both state. After that the Cauvery water
dispute tribunal was established in 2007 the CWDT gives its final verdict that 419 TMC of water
to the Tamil Nadu 270 TMC to the Karnataka state 30 TMC and 7 TMC to the pudducherry.in
2018 the Supreme Court gives its final verdict. In this decision the Supreme Court reduce 14.75
TMC of water from Tamil Nadu and increase the 14.75 TMC of water to the Karnataka. Now the
405 TMC is allocated to the Tamil Nadu and 284.75 is allocated to the Karnataka state. 10 TMC
for the environmental protection.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEBSITES:-

 www.indiankanoon.com
 https://lawbrief.in
 www.lawoctopus.com
 www.casemine.com

Books:-

 Constitution of India 51STEdition: J.N Pandey.

 Indian Polity 5TH Edition: M Laxmikanth.
 Constitution of India 11ST Edition: V.N. Shukla.