WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL

SCIENCES

Cauvery River Water

Dispute: An Analysis
Water Law

Pranav Bansal

INTRODUCTION
The water scarcity has become a global phenomenon, and undoubtedly, India which is a land
with fourteen inter-state rivers1, has not remained unaffected. The presence of rivers flowing
across the states in India, has led to conflict, with each of them disputing on the quantity and
quality of water, which enters in their territory. It is but expected that India, divided in twenty
nine constituent states, would be a victim of water disputes, however the number of water
disputes that have arisen and duration for which they have continues, is unexpected. The
unresolved water disputes definitely affect the peace and calm of the country, along with the
individual rights of people, which have been enshrined as object and purpose of India in the
Constitution, 1950. It is true, that majority of water disputes that arise, are settled, to a large
extent through peaceful negotiations between the states, but the Cauvery River Water Dispute is
peculiar, it is a long standing one and has remained in existence for a period of more than 120
years.2 Being, one of the major dispute in India, it is only justified that the focus of paper should
lay upon the evaluation of the dispute in the light of the final award that was delivered by the
Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) on February 5, 2007. 3 Though the award that was
passed by the tribunal was final, however the dispute is far from being resolved. The State of
Karnataka, being unhappy with the decision, appealed against it in the Supreme Court, the stance
of the apex court shall be analyzed in later section of the paper. This paper will be divided into
three parts. The first part will discuss the inception of the Cauvery Water Dispute; along with the
brief overview of the run up to the first filing of the dispute in the independent era. The second
section of the research paper will touch on the various aspects to this dispute in the post
independence era with special focus on the developments of the post 1974 period where the 50
year agreement signed in 1924 between the State of Madras and the princely state of Mysore
came to an end.4 The third and the most important part of the paper will deal with an analysis of
the final award of the CWDT and the critical opinion of the researcher in present days
1 Richards, Alan & Singh, Nirvikar, 2001, Inter State Water Disputes in India: Institutions and Policies,
Available at: http://people.ucsc.edu/~boxjenk/indiawater.pdf
2 Dr Poddar, Arup Ku. and Bhattacharya, Sanjukta, Final Order of Cauvery River Water Disputes A Review
Report, Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2008550

3 In re: Networking of Rivers, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 668 of 2002

perspective. The conclusion will enumerate the researchers opinion on what the ideal judgment
of the Supreme Court should be in the given dispute so as to settle it for once and all. The
researcher will also endeavour to shed some light on the other cases filed with respect to
Cauverys water in Supreme Court and on the political aspect of the entire dispute; which in the
authors opinion is one of the pertinent reasons for dispute having been dragged on for so long.
HISTORY OF THE DISPUTE
The dispute dates back to the time when Mysore was under the rule of kings and Madras was a
presidency under the British Rule. When Mysore wanted to run some irrigation projects on the
river, Madras Presidency resisted it since they considered this to be a potential source of injury to
their water interests. When a representation regarding the same was made to the British rulers, an
agreement in the year 1892 was signed between both the parties, which as was contested by (and
has been contested ever since) Karnataka was between two unequal players and was hence
biased towards the Madras presidency owing to its presidency status under the British Raj. 5

However, the dispute as we know it today started in the year 1910 when Mysore came up with a
plan to construct a dam at Kannambadi village to hold up to 41.5 TMC of water in two stages. 7
The plan was however rejected by Madras, since it was planning to build a storage dam at Mettur
with a capacity of 80 TMC.8 An allowance of 11 TMC was given to Mysore, who however went
ahead and laid foundation for 41. 5 TMC and thus arose the first recorded dispute in the history

4 Anonymous, Cauvery Water Dispute, ICE Case Studies, Available at:

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/cauvery.htm
5 Anonymous, 1892 Cauvery Agreement Was Preceded By Mutual Consent, The Hindu, 31st January,
2002, Available at: http://hindu.com/2002/01/31/stories/2002013103561000.htm
6 The contesting by Karnataka of the playing field being unequal has been heavily contested by a section
of scholars who are of the opinion that it was a mutually drafted agreement. The other section of scholars
believes however that the coercion was implied and that the princely state of Mysore had no other option
but to agree to the drafted agreement.
7 Anonymous, 2007, The Report of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal with the Decision, Available at:
http://wrmin.nic.in/writereaddata/linkimages/Volume-I1920752696.pdf

of river Cauvery.9 The matter was referred to arbitration under Rule IV of the 1892 agreement.
Much like the cases in Indian courts today, the matter under the British Government of India was
delayed until it entered into proceedings in the year 1913 and the award was given in 1914 which
allowed the State of Mysore to go ahead with building a dam of 11 Metric Tonne Capacity. 10
Certain stipulations of the 1892 Agreement such as the higher threshold of land under irrigation
in both states were objectionable to both the parties and were hence appealed against since
repeated negotiations brought out no concrete result. This led to the signing of the 1924
agreement, which had a shelf life of 50 years.11
POST INDEPENDENCE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DISPUTE
One of the major developments of the post-independence era is the reorganization of states in the
year 1956. This effectively led to a slight change in the equations and the dispute which had till
now been restricted to two contenders, now gave rise to two other contenders, namely Kerala and
Pondicherry.12 Though their demands of Cauverys water were significantly lower than that of the
two major players, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, their presence did cut down on the water
demands of these two states.13 Nearing the marked end of the 50 year period of the 1924
agreement, a Cauvery Fact Finding Committee (CFFC) was set up which was to evaluate the on

8 Velayutham, Chandrasekaran & Aram, I. Arul, 2010, Tracing the Life Cycle of Water Conflict News Coverage: A
Case study of Cauvery River Tribunal Final Verdict, Online International Journal of Communication Studies, Vol.2
(June), Available at: http://www.kurgu.anadolu.edu.tr/dosyalar/24.pdf

9 Id.
10 Anonymous, 2007, The Report of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal with the Decision, Volume II,
Agreements of 1892 and 1924, Available at:
http://www.wrmin.nic.in/writereaddata/linkimages/VolII6365819269.pdf
11 Chapter 8, Inter State Water Disputes and Tribunal, Available at:
http://wrmin.nic.in/writereaddata/linkimages/anu85434781648.pdf
12 Id.

 ground scenario and suggest a new draft agreement or changes to the existing one. 14 These
changes were then incorporated into the new agreement which the parties tacitly agreed to and
then was presented in the Parliament, where it met stiff rejection from Tamil Nadu which
demanded a reversion to the old agreements of 1892 and 1924. Karnataka as it had always
maintained objected to the lopsided arrangement of the previous agreements leading to the State
of Tamil Nadu making a request to set up a tribunal in the year 1986. 15

16

The Tribunal finally

came into being in the year 1990 under the aegis of Justice Chittatosh Mukherjee and the
Cauvery Water Dispute was thus initiated into the Indian judicial system. 17 The dispute went to
the Tribunal several times in the following years and usually there was always as appeal against
the interim awards of the tribunal in the Supreme Court by one party or the other because of their
dissatisfaction with the award given. 18 Things came to a head when there were riots in the
different parts of two states followed in quick succession by a failure of monsoon in the year
1995 1996.19 All this led to the establishment of two bodies, the Cauvery River Authority

13 The Cauvery Basin extends over 32,273 sq. km (42.2%) of Karnataka, 2,886 sq. km (3.5km) in Kerala, 43,868
sq. km (54.3%) of Tamil Nadu and 148 sq. km of Pondicherry as stated in Infra Note 15 as cited in Supra Note 2, p.
6

14 Singh, Sandeep, 2007, Cauvery Water Dispute, Outlook India (Wed, Feb 6, 2007), Available at:
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?233817
15 Supra Note 12
16 The tribunal was set up in accordance with Sections 3 and 4 of the Inter State Water Disputes Act,
1956.
17 Supra Note 12
18 Iyer, Ramaswamy R., 2010, Cauvery Dispute: Time For Closure, The Hindu (op- ed),
February 9, 2010, Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article103228.ece?
homepage=true&css=print

19 The failure of monsoon, effectively meant that Karnataka was not be able to fulfill the requirements of
the interim order and the Supreme Court had to eventually order the then Prime Minister of India, Mr. P.
V. Narasimha Rao to step in and resolve ad dispute.

(CRA) and the Cauvery Monitoring Committee (CMC).20 While the CRA was the political wing
of the instrument set up to combat this problem, CMC was the technical wing, advising the CRA
and the Tribunal on the effectiveness and the scientific-ness of the awards given by it. 21 There
was a repeat of the failed monsoons in the year 2002 and this led to widespread protests across
both the states. The only difference this time round was the presence of CRA to chair meetings
which however were boycotted by the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, J. Jayalalitha for
politically motivated reasons.22 23 The situation became so bad that the Supreme Court had to step
in once again and censure both the states to follow an equitable distribution of distress
mechanism.24 The dispute mellowed down in the years preceding the final award of the CWDT
in 2007, which again sparked the interest of all and sundry for all the wrong reasons and any
hopes of the dispute having been finally settled were dashed when Karnataka filed an appeal in
the Supreme Court challenging the final award on May 7, 2007.25

FINAL AWARD OF THE CWDT AND THE SUBSEQUENT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
20 Anonymous, Cauvery Water Disputes, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Available
at: http://wrmin.nic.in/index3.asp?sslid=393&subsublinkid=376&langid=1
21 Id.
22 Menon, Parvathi and Subramanian, T. S., 2002, The Cauvery Tussle, Volume 19 - Issue 19, September
14 - 27, 2002, Frontline, Available at: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1919/19190040.htm
23 The reason cited however was Karnatakas inability to follow the interim order of the Tribunal which
gave rise to heavy shortfall from Tamil Nadus water requirement.
24 It is also around this time that a Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Supreme Court demanding
nationalization of the inter-state rivers by networking them. The judgment in this case was delivered
recently in February, 2012 amid much controversy and has thereafter been subjected to heavy criticism.
See, Footnote 3.
25
Disposed
and
Pending
Case
Status,
Supreme
at:http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/caseno_new_alt.asp

Court

of

India,

Available

Much of the dispute is rooted in the fact that, despite Tamil Nadu being the lower riparian state in
this deal, it has had greater leverage since the beginning of the dispute. Under any doctrine of
water distribution, be it the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation or The Natural Flow Doctrine, Tamil
Nadu gets apportioned much larger volume of water.26 To add to it, the Indian judicial system
using the Doctrine of Community of Interest and Equitable Apportionment Doctrine decides to
grant Karnataka greater water rights, which did not bode well with Tamil Nadu. 27 The award
however had several positive and negative aspects, which according to the researcher need to be
enumerated so as to give a fair view on where the Tribunal stands. While it was finally successful
in removing the ambiguity surrounding both the 1892 and the 1924 Act, it did so by a complete
negation of their existence and letting the Award in itself rule over them. 28 Under clause XIII of
the award, both the states could now undertake hydro electric projects without having to bother
about their ill effects on the existing irrigation systems. 29 It has also done away with the 11. 2
lakh hectare ceiling imposed on Karnataka meaning that it is free to use the excess water in cases
where monsoon is good. This development is the culmination of the acceptance of Karnatakas
contention to have a distress formula in place so that in times of less yield the burden is
proportionately shared by both states.30 It also called for putting in place a Cauvery Management
Board to look into the daily and monthly functioning of the Award of the Tribunal.31 32
26 Supra Note 2.
27 Id., p. 9
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Jeevan, S.S and David, Stephen, 2007, Watershed Award, India Today, February 19, 2007, Available
at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/final-verdict-by-cauvery-water-disputes-tribunal/1/156307.html
31 Anonymous, 2011, Publish final order of Cauvery tribunal in gazette: Jayalalithaa, The
Hindu, October 18, 2011, Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamilnadu/article2546714.ece

32 The problem however with this aspect of the award was that it had not been notified in the Official
Gazette till October, 2011 thus failing to bring to CMC into existence.

That said and done, there are several other factors affecting the decision of the tribunal not least
of which are the climatic and agrarian concerns of the farmers of two states and the award does
nothing to clarify this stand, if anything it makes a mere few recommendations which are hardly
follow-able given the fact that food security of these states depends on their crop growing
patterns.33 Moreover the issue of whether Bangalore should or should receive drinking water
supply from Cauvery Basin is still a much debated one and it does not make things any easier
that the Distress Mechanism is shrouded in mystery as to its operationality.34
The most important concern however is the legal status of the award where Karnatakas claim is
that the Tribunals award is a purported award and not the final one and that it has every right to
appeal against it with the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu pressing for the publication of the
Award.35 So while the constitutional mandate under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India allows
for the filing of a Special Leave Petition against any judgment in the Supreme Court, it is still a
relevant question to ask as to whether an Inter State Water Dispute Tribunals award would be
purported to be covered under it.36 And these are all questions that the Supreme Court should
subsequently deal with, but every time for some or the other reason, like the bench being small
or temporary the case is deferred for a later hearing and the much awaited date of February, 2012
met with the same fate.

CONCLUSION
The concept of judicial infallibility is valid, but a legal pronouncement need not always be the
last word on a given subject. 37 And this was proven by the appeal against the final award brought
forward by the State of Karnataka. However, there has been much debate about whether it is a
33 Supra Note 2
34 Id.
35 Id., p. 13
36 Supra Note 12. This would also be in direct conflict with Article 262 of the Indian Constitution and S. 11 of the
Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956.

right step to entertain such appeals since they defeat the entire purpose of an award being final
consequentially nullifying the entire act of a Dispute Tribunal being set up for dealing with the
matter.38 But that said, one might question the infallibility and consequentially the finality of an
award rendered by any judicial or quasi judicial body. Right to appeal, gives the parties to a
dispute, the chance to have a second opinion or confirmation of sorts on the decision awarded.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anonymous, Cauvery Water Dispute, ICE Case Studies, Available at:
http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/cauvery.htm

37 Iyer, V. R. Krishna, 2012, River Engineering and the Courts, The Hindu (op ed), March 12,
Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2985193.ece
38 Supra Note 19.

Anonymous, 1892 Cauvery Agreement Was Preceded By Mutual Consent, The Hindu, 31st January,
2002, Available at: http://hindu.com/2002/01/31/stories/2002013103561000.htm
Anonymous, 2007, The Report of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal with the Decision, Volume II,
Agreements of 1892 and 1924, Available at:
http://www.wrmin.nic.in/writereaddata/linkimages/VolII6365819269.pdf
Anonymous, Cauvery Water Disputes, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Available
at: http://wrmin.nic.in/index3.asp?sslid=393&subsublinkid=376&langid=1
Anonymous, 2011, Publish final order of Cauvery tribunal in gazette: Jayalalithaa, The Hindu,
October 18, 2011, Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article2546714.ece
Iyer, Ramaswamy R., 2010, Cauvery Dispute: Time For Closure, The Hindu (op- ed),
February 9, 2010, Available at:
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article103228.ece?
homepage=true&css=print
Iyer, V. R. Krishna, 2012, River Engineering and the Courts, The Hindu (op ed), March 12,
Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2985193.ece
Jeevan, S.S and David, Stephen, 2007, Watershed Award, India Today, February 19, 2007, Available
at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/final-verdict-by-cauvery-water-disputestribunal/1/156307.html
Menon, Parvathi and Subramanian, T. S., 2002, The Cauvery Tussle, Volume 19 - Issue 19,
September 14 - 27, 2002, Frontline, Available at:
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1919/19190040.htm
Dr Poddar, Arup Ku. and Bhattacharya, Sanjukta, Final Order of Cauvery River Water Disputes A
Review Report, Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2008550
Richards, Alan & Singh, Nirvikar, 2001, Inter State Water Disputes in India: Institutions and
Policies, Available at: http://people.ucsc.edu/~boxjenk/indiawater.pdf
Singh, Sandeep, 2007, Cauvery Water Dispute, Outlook India (Wed, Feb 6, 2007), Available at:
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?233817
Velayutham, Chandrasekaran & Aram, I. Arul, 2010, Tracing the Life Cycle of Water Conflict News
Coverage:
A Case study of Cauvery River Tribunal Final Verdict, Online International Journal of
Communication Studies, Vol.2 (June), Available at:
http://www.kurgu.anadolu.edu.tr/dosyalar/24.pdf