Award of Cauvery River Water Disputes Tribunal - Volume 1

THE REPORT
OF
THE CAUVERY WATER DISPUTES

TRIBUNAL
WITH THE DECISION
IN THE MATTER OF WATER DISPUTES REGARDING THE INTER-STATE

RIVER CAUVERY
AND
THE RIVER VALLEY THEREOF
BETWEEN
1. The State of Tamil Nadu

2. The State of Karnataka
3. The State of Kerala
4. The Union Territory of Pondicherry
VOLUME I
BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE

&
FRAMING OF ISSUES
NEW DELHI
2007
ii
COMPOSITION OF THE CAUVERY WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL
CHAIRMAN:
Shri N. P. Singh
(Judge of the Supreme Court of India
upto 25-12-1996)
MEMBERS:
Shri N. S. Rao
(Judge of the Patna High Court
upto 04-01-1994)
Shri Sudhir Narain

(Judge of the Allahabad High Court
upto 09-07-2003)
The following were also in the composition of the Cauvery Water

Disputes Tribunal for the period indicated:-
CHAIRMAN:
Shri Chittatosh Mookerjee

Chief Justice of Bombay High Court
(from 02-06-1990 to June 1996)
MEMBER:
Shri S. D. Agarwala
Judge of Allahabad High Court
(from 02-06-1990 to 26-11-2002)
iii
BEFORE THE CAUVERY WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL
ASSESSORS
1. J.I. Gianchandani,
Retired Chief Engineer,
Irrigation Department of Rajasthan
& Former Director General,
National Water Development Agency,
Govt. of India.
(Whole-time – From January, 1991 – Till Date)
2. S.R. Sahasrabudhe,
Retired Commissioner,
Central Water Commission,
Ministry of Water Resources.
(Whole-time – From September, 1994 – Till Date)
The following were also Assessors for the period indicated:-
J.R. Malhotra
(Part-time – From January, 1991 to June, 1991)
Y.D. Pendse
(Whole-time – From January, 1992 to March, 1994)
iv
Representatives of the State Governments before the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
I. For the State of Tamil Nadu.
Advocates
1. Senior Counsel
Shri K. Parasaran,
Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan
Shri A.K. Ganguly
2. Advocates General/Addl. Advocates General
Shri K. Subramaniam
Shri R. Krishnamoorthy
Shri K.V. Venkatapathy
Shri N.R. Chandran
Shri R. Muthukumarasamy
3. Advocates/Advocate-on-Record
Shri G. Umapathy
Shri M.S. Ganesh
Shri A. Subba Rao
Shri E.C. Agrawala
Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha
Shri V. Krishnamoorthy
Shri P.N. Ramalingam
Shri Nikhil Nayyar
Shri S. Vadivelu
Shri C. Paramasivam
Shri K. Parthasarathy
Other Representatives/Technical Personnel
1. Thiru R. Tirumalai, Advisor to Government

2. Secretaries to Government
Thiru D. Murugaraj
Thiru C. Chellappan
Thiru M. Kutralingam
Thiru S. Rajarethinan
3. Special/Additional Secretaries to Government
Thiru T.R. Ramasamy
Thiru S. Audiseshiah
Thiru D. Jothi Jagarajan
4. Prof. A. Mohanakrishnan, Chairman, Cauvery Technical Cell
5. Shri P.V. Shadevan, Vice-Chairman, Cauvery Technical Cell
6. Shri D. Hariram, Vice-Chairman, Cauvery Technical Cell
v
7. Members
Shri B. Manickavasagam
Shri A. Loghanathan
Shri R. Subramanian
Shri G. Balakrishnan
Shri D. Annamalai
Shri D. Bhoopathy
Shri R. Muralidharan
Shri T.R.V. Balakrishnan
Shri M.S. Ramamurthi
Shri S. Kulathu
Shri A.V. Raghavan
Shri C.V.S. Gupta
Shri S. Parthasarathi
Shri V. Sairam Venkata
8. Member Secretaries
Shri O.N. Mohan Raj
Shri T. Rajabather
Shri R. Kuppusamy
Shri S. Santhanaraman
9. Assistant Executive Engineers
Shri T.N. Gopal
Shri K. Nagarajan
Shri P. Ameer Hamsa
Shri Ram Dahin Singh
10. Shri R. Raghavendran, Deputy Director of Agriculture
11. Shri K.S. Meenakshi Sundaram, Agriculture Officer
II. For the State of Karnataka
Advocates
1. Senior Counsel
Shri F.S. Nariman
Shri Anil B. Divan
Shri Sharat S. Javali
Shri T. Andhyarjina
2. Advocates General
Shri B.V. Acharya
Shri C. Shivappa
Shri P.P. Muthanna
Shri M.R. Janardhana
Shri S. Vijay Shankar
Shri A.N. Jayaram
Shri B.T. Parthasarathy
vi
Shri Mohan V. Katarki
Shri Deepak Nargoalkar
Shri Shambhu Prasad Singh
Shri Subhash C. Sharma
Shri Atul Chitale
Shri Syed Naqvi
Shri Brijesh Kalappa
Shri Ranvir Singh

1. Secretaries, Department of Irrigation/Water Resources, Govt. of
Karnataka
Shri G. Ashwathanarayana
Shri M. Krishnappa
Shri N.R. Venkatesha Prasad
Shri S.M. Panchaghatti
Shri K. Shivashankar
Shri L. Basavaraju
Shri S.K. Dhruva
Shri S.J. Channabasappa
2. Shri Abhaya Prakash, Principal Secretary
3. Shri A.K.M. Nayak, Principal Secretary
4. Smt. Amita Prasad, Commissioner & Ex-Officio Secretary
5. Shri P.R. Nayak, Chief Coordinator
6. Shri B.C. Angadi, Chairman, Cauvery Technical Cell
7. Shri A.V. Shankara Rao, Chairman, Cauvery Technical Cell
8. Shri S. Raghuram, Technical Advisor
9. Shri R. Manu, Technical Advisor
10. Chief Engineers, Water Resources Development Organisation
Shri T.S. Rudrappa
Capt. S. Raja Rao
Shri B.S. Panduranga Rao,
Shri S.N. Prasad
Shri R.M. Chandrashekarappa
Shri R. Hrushikesh,
Shri N. Vijayaraghavan
III. For the State of Kerala
Advocates
1. Senior Counsel
Shri Shanti Bhushan
Shri Kapil Sibal
Shri Milan K. Banerjee
Shri R.F. Nariman
Shri Rajeev Dhavan
Shri Raju Ramachandran
vii
Shri Jayant Bhushan
Shri M.A.Feroz
Shri Gourav K. Banerjee
Shri T.T. Kunhikannan
Shri Deepak
Shri Dayan Krishnan
Shri Kumar Subir Ranjan
Shri Gautham Narayan
Shri Raghenth Basant
Shri Johan Mathew & Shri Sasi Prabhu, M/s. R.S. Prabhu & Co.,
Law Firm
1. Shri T.K. Sasi, Chief Engineer, Irrigation
2. Shri K. Divakaran, Chief Engineer, ISW
3. Shri P.S. Sasi, Additional Director, Agriculture
4. Dr. E.J. James, Director, CWRDM
5. Shri P. Krishnan, Superintending Engineer
6. Shri K.K. Ramesan, Superintending Engineer,
7. Shri K.K. Sajeevan, Superintending Engineer
8. Shri V.K. Mahanudevan, Superintending Engineer
9. Shri A.D. Vincent, Executive Engineer
10. Smt. Gracy John, Joint Director, ISW
11. Shri P. Naveen Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer
12. Shri Zachariah Koshy, Deputy Director, ISW
13. Shri O. Jogi Antony, Assistant Engineer
14. Shri S. Jayaram, Assistant Director, ISW
IV. For the Union Territory of Pondicherry

Advocates
1. Senior Counsel
Shri A.S. Nambiar
Shri P.K. Manohar,
Smt. Shanta Vasudevan
Shri V.G. Pragasam

1. Late Shri Laurent Saint Andre, Executive Engineer
2. Shri S. Ramamurthy, Executive Engineer
3. Shri B. Balagandhi, Agriculture Officer
viii
(vii)
UNITS & CONVERSION TABLE
LINEAR
1 cm = 0.39 inches
1 meter = 3.28 feet
1 km = 0.62 miles
1 inch = 25.4 millimetres
1 foot = 12 inches
= 304.8 millimetres
1 mile = 5280 feet
= 1609.34 metres
= 1.61 km
AREA
1 hectare = 2.47 acres (100 metres x 100

metres)
1 acre = 4840 sq. yds.
= 0.40 hectares
1 sq. mile = 640 acres
= 259 hectares
1 sq. km. = 100 hectares
VOLUME
1 cub. metre (cum) = 35.32 cu.ft (cft)

= 219.97 gallons
1million cub. metre (m.cum) = 35.32 million cub. ft (mcft)
= 810.71 acre ft.
1 cubic ft (cft) = 0.0283 cum
= 6.23 gallons
1 million cub ft. (mcft.) = 11.574 cusec days
1000 million cub.ft (one TMC) = 28.32 million cubic metres (m.cum)
= 22957.0 acre ft.
1 million acre ft. = 43.56 TMC
= 1234.56 m.cum
RATE OF FLOW
1 cub. meter/second (cumecs) a day = 35.31 cusecs a day

= 70.05 acre ft./day
= 8.646 ha. m/day
1 litre/second = 0.04 cusecs
1 cub. ft. per sec. = 1.98 acre ft./day
= 28.32 litres per second
= 6.23 gallons per second
1 acre ft. day = 0.50 cusecs
= 14.16 litres second
1 million gallon day = 1.86 cusecs
= 3.69 acre ft. day
1 imperial gallon = 1.20 US gallons
1 milliard = 1000 millions
ix
VOLUME - I
Background of Dispute and framing of Issues
CONTENTS
Chapter Subject Page Nos.

No.
1. Dispute regarding sharing of the waters of 1 - 26

inter-State river Cauvery among the different
riparian States and the Constitution of the Tribunal.
2. Background of the Cauvery Water Dispute 27 - 49
3. The claim of the Riparian States 50 - 61

for share of waters of Cauvery.
4. Petitions for interim directions 62 - 72

Before the Tribunal and orders passed
on 25th June, 1991
5. The Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation 73 -86

Protection Ordinance and Reference by
President under Article 143 of the Constitution
for opinion of the Supreme Court and the opinion
of the Supreme Court.
6. Order of the Tribunal dated 3.4.1992 on the 87 - 108

Petition on behalf of Karnataka before
Tribunal for recall of order dated 25th June 1991
7. Framing of Issues 109 -120
8 The Cauvery River Water (Implementation of the 121 - 126

Order of 1991 and all subsequent related orders
of the Tribunal) Scheme 1998.
--------
Chapter 1
Dispute regarding sharing of the waters of inter-State

river Cauvery among the different riparian
States and the Constitution of the Tribunal
The Central Government in exercise of its power conferred by
section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (33 of 1956)
constituted `Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’ by a notification dated 2nd
June 1990.
‘MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES

NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 2nd June, 1990
S.O. 437(E) – Whereas a request has been received under
section 3 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (33 of
1956) from the Government of Tamil Nadu to refer the water
dispute regarding inter-State river Cauvery and the river valley
thereof, to a tribunal for adjudication;
And whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that

the water dispute regarding the inter-State river Cauvery, and
the river valley thereof, cannot be settled by negotiations;
Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by section

4 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby constitutes a
Water Disputes Tribunal called “The Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal”, with headquarters at New Delhi, consisting of the
following members nominated in this behalf by the Chief Justice
of India, for the adjudication of the water dispute regarding the
inter-State river Cauvery, namely:-
(i) Shri Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee - Chairman
Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court
2
(ii) Shri Justice S.D. Agarwala - Member

Judge of the Allahabad High Court
(iii) Shri Justice N.S. Rao - Member

Judge of the Patna High Court
By order and in the name of the President of India
-------
{No.21/1/90-WD}
M.A. CHITALE, Secy. (Water Resources) “
2. The Government of India by its notification No.21/1/90-WD dated
2nd June 1990 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal saying:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (i) of
Section 5, of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (Act 33 of
1956), the Central Government hereby refers to the Cauvery
Water Disputes Tribunal for adjudication, the water disputes
regarding the Inter-State river Cauvery, and the river valley
thereof, emerging from letter No.17527/K.2/82-110 dated the 6th
July, 1986 from the Government of Tamil Nadu (copy enclosed)."
The letter No.17527/K.2/82-110 dated 6th July, 1986 from

the Government of Tamil Nadu:-
"From
Thiru H.B.N. Shetty, I.A.S.,
Commissioner and Secretary to
the Government of Tamil Nadu.
To
The Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Water Resources,
Shram Shakti Bhavan,
NEW DELHI
3
Sir,
Sub:- River Cauvery - Dispute among the States on the use of its
waters - Breach of Madras - Mysore Agreements of 1892
and 1924 - Request for adjudication.
Ref:-1. This Government's Letter No.79558/ D /69 dated

05.09.69 to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of
Irrigation and Power.
2.This Government letter No.79558/D/69/36 dated 17,02,70

to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation
and Power.
3.This Government letter No.53724/1.Spl./75-06 dated

29,05,75 to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of
Agriculture and Irrigation.
--------
The Prayer:
I am to state that a water dispute with the Government of
Karnataka has arisen by reason of the fact that the interests of
the State of Tamil Nadu and the inhabitants thereof in the waters
of Cauvery which is an inter-State river, have been affected
prejudicially by -
(a) the executive action taken by the Karnataka State in
constructing Kabini, Hemavathi, Harangi, Swarnavathi and other
projects and expanding the ayacut --
(i) which executive action has resulted in materially

diminishing the supply of waters to Tamil Nadu,
(ii) which executive action has materially affected the
prescriptive rights of the ayacutdars already acquired and
existing; and
(iii) which executive action is also in violation of the 1892
and 1924 agreements;
and
4
(b) the failure of the Karnataka Government to implement

the terms of the 1892 and the 1924 Agreements relating to
the use, distribution and control of the Cauvery waters.
The bilateral negotiations hitherto held between the
States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have totally failed.
Also all sincere attempts so far made by the
Government of India to settle this long pending water
dispute by negotiations since 1970 have totally failed.
Therefore this request is made by the Government of
Tamil Nadu to the Government of India under Section 3 of
the Interstate Water Disputes Act, 1956 to refer this water
dispute to a Tribunal.
The matters connected with the dispute and the
efforts made for settling the dispute by negotiations are
enumerated below:-
The River Cauvery
The river Cauvery rises in the Brahmagiri range of

the western ghats in the Coorg district of Karnataka at an
elevation of about 1340 m. Harangi, Hemavathi, Shimsha,
Arkavathi, Lakshmanathirtha and Swarnavathi are the
major tributaries joining the river Cauvery in the Karnataka
territory. Kabini which drains the eastern slopes of the
western ghats in the north Malabar district of Kerala State
flows through Karnataka and joins the river Cauvery. At the
place where Cauvery enters the Tamil Nadu State limits the
Mettur Reservoir has been formed. Bhavani, Amaravathi
and Noyil are the tributaries to the river in the Tamil Nadu
State. Cauvery is thus an interstate river with an unique
characteristic geographical layout in that its upper hilly
catchment lying in the Karnataka and Kerala States is
influenced by the dependable south-west monsoon during
5
the months June to September, while its lower part lies in

the plains of the Tamil Nadu State served by the not so
dependable north-east monsoon during the months
October to December. The two parts of the catchment may
be taken as meeting at the Hogenekal falls just above the
Mettur Reservoir, where the river narrows down to form a
single defined neck.
Development of Irrigation in the Cauvery Basin:

Irrigation in the basin started centuries ago all along
the river course wherever the soil, land and the contours
were favourable for raising irrigated crops, and as one
proceeded downstream, the irrigated area increased
culminating in the large delta that fans out below the Grand
Anicut. The Grand Anicut structure itself is considered to
be nearly 2000 years old and the irrigated agriculture in the
delta must have been practiced much earlier. The Upper
Anicut is considered to be the head of the delta as the river
Cauvery carries essentially the irrigation waters from this
point leaving the floods to be carried away by the Coleroon
branch.
Prior to 1928 when the first storage in the basin viz.
Krishnarajasagara of Karnataka came into operation, the
total area irrigated in the basin was 19.80 lakh acres both
major and minor, utilising about 510 TMC of water. This
was all only through the diversion systems created over a
period of time by several rulers and the people and the
major part of this was in the delta area.
The Interstate Agreements of 1892 and 1924:

Copies of these two interstate agreements are enclosed for
ready reference (Enclosure -1).
6
While the 1892 Agreement relates to all the main

rivers listed in Schedule 'A' and the minor streams listed in
Schedule 'B' of the agreement, the 1924 Agreement was
framed and agreed to by both Mysore and Madras
Governments in order to define the terms under which the
Mysore Government were to construct the Krishnarajasagar
dam across the River Cauvery and to provide for extension
of irrigation in both the States utilising the flows in the River
Cauvery. While the 1892 Agreement is a general
agreement relating to a number of interstate rivers, the
1924 Agreement relates to the irrigation development in the
basin of the interstate river Cauvery alone. Both the 1892
and 1924 Agreements are permanent.
The basic tenet enshrined in both these interstate
agreements is that no injury could be caused to the existing
irrigation lower down by the construction of new works
upstream. And when such works are planned, the prior
consent of the State Government of the lower down area is
to be obtained and the rules of regulation so framed as not
to make any material diminution in supplies to the
established irrigation downstream. This is to ensure that
nothing shall be done in Mysore which will have the effect
of curtailing the customary supply of waters for the ancient
ayacut in the lower riparian State.
The makers of the 1924 Agreement have in their
mature wisdom, on due consideration and study of the
unique characteristics of the basin and the irrigation
developments that had already taken place, provided for a
fair and equitable utilisation of the available waters and for
parallel development of the new ayacut in both the States
and rules of regulation meant to achieve the basic objective
defined above, were also agreed upon.
7
Thus, Mysore Government was permitted to

complete the Krishnarajasagar of capacity 44,827 M.cft.
with an ayacut of 1,25,000 acres and also have other
reservoirs of an effective capacity of 45,000 M.cft. with an
ayacut of 1,10,000 acres under them. As against this, the
Madras Government was permitted to construct the Mettur
dam to form a reservoir of 93,500 M.cft. effective capacity
and have new irrigation for 3,01,000 acres. Besides this,
clause 10(xiv) entitled the Mysore Government to construct
new reservoirs, on the tributaries of Cauvery, of capacities
not exceeding 60% of the capacities of the reservoirs the
Madras Government may choose to form on the tributaries
Bhavani, Amaravathi or Noyyil.
Clause 10(xii) gave freedom to either of the States to
extend irrigation if effected solely by improvement of duty,
without any increase of the quantity of water used.
Clause 10(xi) of the 1924 Agreement provided for
the reconsideration of certain clauses of the Agreement
relating to extensions of irrigation in Mysore and Tamil
Nadu on the expiry of 50 years i.e. in 1974. Only certain
clauses of the Agreement viz. clauses 10(iv) to (viii) which
deal with the utilisation of surplus waters for further
extension in both Mysore and Tamil Nadu beyond what was
contemplated in the 1924 Agreement are subject to revision
on a mutually acceptable basis and in the light of the
experience gained in the working of the Agreement.
Violation of the Interstate Agreements of 1892and 1924 by
Karnataka:
Four new reservoirs have been formed by the
Government of Karnataka by constructing dams across the
tributaries of Cauvery. Though the Government of India
and the Central Water Commission have not so far cleared
8
these projects and the Planning Commission has also not

approved these projects for plan assistance, the
Government of Karnataka are proceeding with these
projects in stages from their own funds under Non-Plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of the Capacity Year of Year of Ultimate area
Reservoir (TMC) start of completion to be irrigated
work (Lakh Acres)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harangi 8.0 1968 1979 1.64

Kabini 16.0 1958 1975 4.54
Hemavathi 34.0 1968 1978 7.00
Suvarnavathy 1.1 1967 1973 0.07
------- --------
TOTAL 59.1 13.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extent of new ayacut proposed to be developed

ultimately under these reservoirs totaling to about 13.25
lakh acres is far in excess of what was intended and
permitted under the 1924 Agreement.
For none of these, they have obtained the prior

consent of the Tamil Nadu Government. By this, they have
violated the stipulation made in Clauses II and III of the
1892 Interstate Agreement. The rules for the working of
these reservoirs which are to be framed as contemplated
under Clause 10 (vii) and Clause 10 (xiv) of 1924
Agreement, so as to ensure that no material diminution
occurs in the supplies due for Tamil Nadu and to keep such
reduction within 5% during any impounding period have not
been settled.
9
But the Karnataka Government started impounding

the flows in all the above four new reservoirs from 1974
onwards acting unilaterally without any concern for the
needs and rights of the Tamil Nadu Government and
thereby have violated the terms and conditions stipulated in
Clauses 10(vi), (vii), (viii) & (xiv) of the 1924 Agreement.
Tamil Nadu's concern:
In view of the grave threat which this unilateral action

of the Mysore Government posed to the vast pre-existing
irrigation in Tamil Nadu under the Cauvery, this
Government in their letter dated as early as 16.4.1969
(Encl.II) appealed to the then Prime Minister of India to use
her good offices in persuading the Mysore Government to
conform to the Agreements between the two States and to
desist from proceeding further with the execution of their
schemes till interstate aspects were settled with this
Government.
The then Prime Minister in her reply (Encl.III) dated
23.8.69 agreed that interstate aspects should be settled
satisfactorily before these projects could be sanctioned and
asked the Minister for Irrigation and Power to give a hand in
amicably resolving the differences that had arisen. She
even offered to intervene personally at a later stage if such
intervention became necessary.
Tamil Nadu's first call for adjudication - September, 1969:
Seeing that the Government of Mysore were clearly

not willing to honour their obligations under the interstate
agreements and were bent upon proceeding with their
major schemes, this Government in their letter dated 5th
10
September, 1969 (Enclosure-IV) addressed to the

Government of India, requested the Government of India to
make it clear to the Government of Mysore that any
construction which will later on be found to be in
contravention of the interstate agreements and to the
prejudice of this State's interests will be at their own risk. In
the same letter, we make the plea that if the Government of
India are not able to ensure that the Government of Mysore
honour their obligations as per the interstate agreements,
we would like the matter to be referred for arbitration as we
considered that it is better to do this earlier to avoid our
Government being faced with a fait accompli by Mysore by
unilaterally proceeding with the execution of their projects.
Unfortunately, our suggestion was not acted upon by
the Government of India in time.
Tamil Nadu's formal request for adjudication - February
1970
Mysore Minister for Labour and Law who attended
the special conference convened by the Union Minister for
Irrigation & Power Dr.K.L.Rao on 09.02.70 declined to give
an assurance that the two Interstate Agreements will be
honoured by Mysore (Enclosure-V)
This confirmed that Mysore's violation of the two
agreements was pre-planned, deliberate and intentional.
This Government lost no time in making a formal
request to the Government of India under Section 3 of the
Interstate Water Disputes Act of 1956. The request to refer
the dispute to adjudication under Section 4 of the Interstate
Water Disputes Act of 1956 was made in letter
No.79558/D/69 -36 dated 17-02-70 (Enclosure VI).
Tamil Nadu's continued participation in the discussions and
negotiations:
11
Despite the fact that it had become clear that the

Mysore Government is intent on violating the interstate
agreements, Tamil Nadu Government have been
continuously participating the discussions and negotiations
arranged through meetings convened by the Union Minister
for Irrigation and Power in order to give a hand to the Union
Minister in settling the issue that had arisen due to the
violation by Mysore Government. Five such meetings were
held in the year 1970 alone and in all these, Tamil Nadu
have been pleading for the continued observance of the
provisions of the interstate agreements. Kerala has also
been participating in these interstate meetings as it
acquired the status of a basin State with certain parts of the
Cauvery catchment lying in the north Malabar area being
included in Kerala through the States Reorganisation of
1956.
When the discussions held in the Chief Minister's
meeting convened by the Union Minister on the 17th April
and 16th May, 1970and the discussions between the Chief
Ministers of the States held in July'70 under the
Chairmanship of the Chairman, Central Water Commission
proved that there was no meeting point and the Mysore
Government were not willing to abide by the two interstate
agreements, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu wrote to
the then Prime Minister of India in letter No.65638/D/70 - 9
dated 4.8.1970 (Enclosure VII) referring to the formal
request already made on 17.2.70 for adjudication through
Tribunal and requesting her to pass orders for the reference
of the dispute to the Tribunal under the Interstate Water
Disputes Act of 1956.
At this stage, the then Union Minister for Irrigation
and Power, Dr.K.L.Rao in his letter Confl. D.O.No. 14(1)/70-
12
WD dated 19.8.70 (Enclosure VIII) addressed to the then

Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu categorically stated that the
rules and regulations for the new Mysore projects should be
worked out in accordance with the 1924 Agreement and
requested him to permit his Engineers to attend a meeting
on the 31st August, 1970. While gratefully acknowledging
the letter and thanking him for the categorical assurance
given therein, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in his
letter D.O.No. 65638/D/70-II dated 25.08-1970 addressed
to the Union Minister agreed to permit Tamil Nadu
Engineers to attend the meeting, proposed for the 31st
August, 1970. However this meting ended fruitlessly.
At the conclusion of the series of talks ending with
the last round on 27.10.1970, Dr. K.L. Rao, the then Union
Minister for Irrigation and Power, announced that in his
opinion, in view of the totally divergent stands taken by
Mysore and Tamil Nadu, no settlement appeared possible
and he would therefore report to the cabinet on the failure of
the negotiations.
Following this, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu
in his D.O. letter No.65638/D/70-36 dated 8th November,
1970 (Enclosure IX) addressed to the then Prime Minister of
India explained that he had been attending these meetings
with a view to explore the possibilities of a negotiated
settlement and since these hopes were belied, he insisted
on urgent and immediate action being taken in the matter of
referring the dispute to a Tribunal.
Filing of Suit by Tamil Nadu in the Supreme Court:
The Prime Minister of India was reminded through

D.O. letter No. 65638/D/70-39 dated 06.12.70, letter No.
65638/D/70-45 dated 23.12.70, letter No. 65638/D/70 dated
13
01.04.71 and letter No. 65638/D/70-56 dated 05.06.71

(Enclosures X to XIII) from the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu
on the reference of the dispute to a Tribunal giving
adequate and convincing reasons for this move, as the only
alternative available.
As a last resort, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu
approached the Prime Minister with the resolution passed
by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and Legislative
Council on 8th July 1971, and conveyed to the then Prime
Minister in his letter No.65638/D/70, dated 11.07.71
(Enclosure XIII-A) the depth of feeling mounting in the State
on the continued indifference to the plea for constitution of a
Tribunal. This was also followed by another letter No.
65638/D/70-72 dated 19.07.71. (Enclosure XIII-B).
The Prime Minister however in her reply in letter No.
178-PMH/71 dated 19.07.71 (Enclosure XIII-C) referred to
the Mysore State being then under the President's Rule and
felt that it would not be proper to take steps committing the
Mysore State when there was no popular Government.
Disappointed at the failure of all these efforts, the
Tamil Nadu Government was driven to the situation of
approaching the Supreme Court of India through Suit
O.S.1/71 with a prayer to direct the Government of India to
constitute a Tribunal as per the provisions of the Interstate
Waters Disputes Act of 1956 and pending disposal of the
Suit and till the disposal of the reference by the Tribunal,
restrain the State of Karnataka by an injunction from
proceeding in any manner with or executing their projects.
Prime Minister's Advice:
On the personal advice and assurance given by the

then Prime Minister of India to the Chief Minister of Tamil
Nadu that the Government of India would use their good
14
offices and strive for a negotiated settlement, the Suit filed

in the Supreme Court was withdrawn without prejudice to
the right for filing a Suit again if it became necessary.
The Cauvery Fact Finding Committee (CFFC):

In the meeting of the Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu,
Mysore and Kerala convened by the Union Minister for
Irrigation and Power from 29.05.72 to 31.05.72, it was
decided that a Committee would be constituted to collect
factual details on the yield and utilisation of waters in the
Cauvery basin. The Chief Ministers also agreed that
pending settlement of the problem, no State would take any
steps to make the solution of the problem difficult either by
impounding or by utilising the waters of the Cauvery beyond
what it was on 31.05.72 (Encl.XIV). However this
understanding was flouted by Karnataka by continuing the
work on their new projects and from 1974 onwards, they
also started obstructing the flows due to Tamil Nadu.
The Government of India constituted the Cauvery
Fact Finding Committee with experts in the field. This
Government gave necessary co-operation and willingly
submitted all the necessary data to the Cauvery Fact
Finding Committee for compilation of its report which it
submitted in December, 1972.
This report was considered by the Chief Ministers of
the three States on 19th April, 1973 at a meeting held at
New Delhi. As desired by the Chief Ministers, the
Government of India revived the Cauvery Fact Finding
Committee for a further period of three months with a
mandate that "the Committee shall review the data supplied
to it earlier by the State Governments in respect of area
15
cropped, net area irrigated, irrigated cropped area and other

data relevant to water utilisation at different points of time
and undertake such verification as is necessary, from other
data available with the State Government especially those
published".
Accordingly, the Cauvery Fact Finding Committee
submitted its additional report on 14th August, 1973. The
data compiled by this Committee were accepted by the
Chief Ministers in the meetings convened on 29.04.73 and
09.10.73. Salient details of the findings of the Cauvery Fact
Finding Committee are given in Enclosure- XV.
From the data compiled and given by the committee,
it can be seen that as on 1971 - 72, the combined utilisation
of waters in the Cauvery river in all the basin States was
even more than the total annual yield and there was no
surplus. This should have led to the logical conclusion that
the review intended under Clause 10(xi) of the 1924
Agreement at the end of the 50 year period has been done
and since there was no surplus, there is no need for
reconsideration of the limitations and arrangements
embodied in the Clauses 10(iv) to 10(viii) of the agreement
and it should have been held that with the review prescribed
after 50 years having been done, the agreement continues
as a permanent instrument. However, the Government of
India came up with a suggestion that further extension of
ayacut in the basin may be possible if savings in the
present uses are affected.
Interstate discussions continued on this basis all
these long years with no fruitful results.
Consideration of the proposals put forth by the Union
Government:
16
Though Tamil Nadu Government was convinced and

firm in view that no modifications are necessary to the
existing inter-State agreements, this Government without
prejudice to its legal entitlement examined all suggestions
made by the Union Government at various points of time
since 1973 which are all known to the Government of India.
From 1973, the Union Government have convened

as many as 13 meetings at the Chief Ministers' level to
settle the dispute by negotiations. The Union Territory of
Pondicherry was inducted as a party in this dispute from
1978 and participated in the discussions.
Draft proposals for negotiated settlement were put
forth by the Union Government in 1974 for consideration by
the State Governments (Enclosure XVI). Since the
allocation contemplated was totally inadequate for meeting
the requirements of the existing irrigation in Tamil Nadu and
no protection to the existing irrigation was envisaged, the
draft understanding was not agreed to by Tamil Nadu.
Finding that no settlement could be reached on the
basis of negotiations even with the good offices of the
Government of India and any further delay will further
prejudice the interests of Tamil Nadu, the Secretary to
Government of Tamil Nadu addressed the Secretary to the
Government of India in the Ministry of Agriculture and
Irrigation in letter No.53724/I.Spl./75-06, dated 29.05.75
requesting the Government of India as per provisions under
Section 3 of the Interstate Water Disputes Act of 1956 to
refer the Cauvery Water Dispute to a Tribunal for
adjudication. (Enclosure - XVII).
However, the Government of India without acting on
this request again convened another meeting of the basin
17
States and put up a similar draft understanding in August,

1976 for consideration by the States, when Tamil Nadu was
under President's Rule (Encl. XVIII). This draft
understanding of 1976 was the same as the one presented
in 1974; but of course contained a Clause regarding
protection to the existing areas under irrigation in a normal
year, and provided for the constitution of a Technical
Committee of representatives of the Central and State
Governments to work out the manner of sharing of available
waters in the lean years. Though a clause relating to
protection of existing irrigation was included, the
subsequent clauses which envisaged large savings in the
existing uses and allocation of a meagre quantity of 393
TMC for use for Tamil Nadu made this clause ineffective.
Thus, both the draft proposals brought out by the
Centre were duly considered but could not be accepted by
this Government as they cut at the very root of the basic
principle of priority of appropriation enshrined in the
subsisting inter-State agreements and failed to give
protection even to the existing age old ayacut, leave alone
concede extension of irrigation in this State. However, our
Engineers were persuaded to attend all the six Technical
Committee meetings convened by the Member, Central
Water Commission and they put forth in clear terms the
minimum flows required at Mettur to safeguard the existing
irrigation adopting the guidelines for scientific assessment
of crop water requirements acceptable to the Commission.
The Technical Committee could not come to any
conclusion. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu wrote to the
Union Minister for Irrigation explaining the circumstances
under which he was unable to accept the draft
understanding of August 1976 and offered to participate in
18
further discussions if a meeting was convened by the Union

Minister (Enclosure-XIX).
The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in his D.O. Lr.
No.103315/1.Spl./76 dated 29th August, 1978 (Enclosure
XX) addressed to Government of India insisted on the need
for an early solution to this long procrastinated dispute.
When the Union Minister for Agriculture and
Irrigation decided in the meeting held at Madras on
27.12.1980 that each State shall furnish a draft proposal for
the negotiated settlement, this Government explained its
stand in unequivocal terms (Enclosure - XXI).
We were asked to explore the possibility of
narrowing down the differences by holding bilateral talks
with the Government of Karnataka, which also we did in all
earnestness on the 14th and 15th of October,1981. We
found that Karnataka took a stand ignoring all the provisions
of the two inter-State agreements and went to the extent of
disowning their earlier concurrence to the findings of the
Cauvery Fact Finding Committee and the draft
understanding put up by the Government of India in August,
1976. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu wrote to the
Government of India and to the then Chief Minister of
Karnataka saying that there is no possibility of arriving at an
amicable settlement through bilateral discussions and
requested the Union Minister to convene a full meeting of
the basin Chief Ministers (Enclosures - XXII & XXIII) to
settle the dispute without any more delay.
At the interstate meeting convened by the Union
Minister on 05.04.83, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, Thiru
Ramakrishna Hegde suggested one more attempt at
bilateral talks with the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu which
19
was accepted vide summary record of the discussions

(Enclosure - XXIV).
When data on the utilisation and area irrigated for
the period from 1972 - 73 (i.e. beyond the period up to
which the data was compiled by CFFC) were exchanged
between the Governments of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
preparatory to the bilateral talks, it was seen that Karnataka
had steeply increased their utilisation from their original 177
TMC agreed to by the Chief Ministers and that Karnataka
does not feel that it has got obligations to limit their own
new use of Cauvery waters in order to protect the existing
interests in the lower riparian State. Our earlier fears that
grave injury would be caused to Tamil Nadu irrigation were
coming true very fast in real terms.
The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu wrote to the Chief
Minister of Karnataka and Government of India in January,
1984 proposing that further work on the projects may be
deferred until final settlement of the Cauvery dispute
(Enclosure - XXV & XXVI).
The Chief Minister of Karnataka sent a reply in his
letter (Enclosure - XXVII) refusing to defer the works on
these unauthorised projects.
Last bilateral discussions with Karnataka :
In the bilateral discussions held on 23.11.85 at

Madras, the Chief Minister of Karnataka indicated that they
need at least 360 TMC for utilisation in their State and at
the most he may only defer further projects on hand aiming
at an utilisation of another 60 TMC. Curiously this means
that they are scheming to appropriate the entire Cauvery
water obtained in their territory in a normal year without any
concern about the grave injury they are causing to the
existing rights of ayacutdars in Tamil Nadu and that they
20
are not prepared to honour their obligations under the inter-

State agreements. Since the demands of Karnataka are
very unreasonable and their continued obstruction and
extraction of waters upstream is already inflicting grave
injury to the existing irrigation in this State, the Chief
Minister of Karnataka was informed in the meeting that the
bilateral negotiations hitherto held to settle the dispute have
totally failed and that no purpose will be served by
continuing the bilateral discussions any more and that this
Government will request the Government of India to
constitute a Tribunal as per the Inter-State Water Disputes
Act of 1956.
Chief Ministers' Meeting held at Bangalore on 16.06.86:
In the meeting convened by the Union Minister for

Water Resources on 16.06.86 at Bangalore to settle the
dispute by negotiations it was explained on behalf of Tamil
Nadu that all serious efforts hitherto made to resolve the
dispute by the Government of India for the past sixteen
years have failed to bear any fruit and there is no scope at
all for finding a solution by mutual discussions and the
Union Minister was requested to take expeditious action to
constitute a Tribunal.
This formal request for the constitution of a Tribunal
is in pursuance of our decision conveyed to the Union
Minister for Water Resources at that meeting.
Request for expeditious action in referring the dispute to a
Tribunal:
From 1974 - 75 onwards, the Government of
Karnataka has been impounding all the flows in their
reservoirs. Only after their reservoirs are filled up, the
surplus flows are let down. The injury inflicted on this State
21
in the past decade due to the unilateral action of Karnataka
and the suffering we had in running around for a few TMC
of water every time the crops reached the withering stage
has been briefly stated in a note (Enclosure - XXVIII). It is
patent that the Government of Karnataka have badly
violated the inter-State agreements and caused irreparable
harm to the age old irrigation in this State. Year after year,
the realisation at Mettur is falling fast and thousands of
acres in our ayacut in the basin are forced to remain fallow.
The bulk of the existing ayacut in Tamil Nadu concentrated
mainly in Thanjavur and Tiruchirapalli districts is already
gravely affected in that the cultivation operations are getting
long delayed, traditional double crop lands are getting
reduced to single crop lands and crops even in the single
crop lands are withering and failing for want of adequate
wettings at crucial time. We are convinced that the
inordinate delay in solving the dispute is taken advantage of
by the Government of Karnataka in extending their canal
systems and their ayacut in the new projects and every day
of delay is adding to the injury caused to our existing
irrigation.
The Government of Tamil Nadu are of the firm view

that the water dispute with the Government of Karnataka
has arisen by reason of the fact that the interests of the
State of Tamil Nadu and the inhabitants thereof in the
22
waters of Cauvery, which is an interstate river have been

affected prejudicially by -
(a) the executive action taken by the Karnataka
State in constructing Kabini, Hemavathi, Harangi,
Suvarnavathy and other projects and expanding the
ayacuts -
(i) which executive action has resulted in materially
diminishing the supply of waters to Tamil Nadu,
(ii) which executive action has materially affected the
prescriptive rights of the ayacutdars already
acquired and existing, and
(iii) which executive action is also in violation of the
1892 and 1924 Agreements
and
(b) the failure of the Karnataka Government to
implement the terms of the 1892 and 1924
Agreements relating to the use, distribution and
control of the Cauvery waters.
The bilateral negotiations hitherto held between the States
of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have totally failed.
Also all sincere attempts so far made by the
Government of India to settle this long pending water
dispute by negotiations since 1970 have totally failed.
I am therefore to request the Central Government to
refer the Cauvery Water Dispute to a Tribunal for
adjudication under the provisions of Section 4 of the Inter-
State Water Disputes Act, 1956 without any delay.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
( H.B.N. SHETTY)
Commissioner & Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department "
23
3. Shri Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee, who was the Chairman of
the Tribunal resigned in June 1996. An amendment was made in the
Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources No. S.O. 437 (E)
dated 2nd June 1990, in exercise of power conferred by section 4, read
with section 5A of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (33 of 1956).
The Central Government reconstituted the Tribunal on 11 December
1996:
“In the said notification, for item (i), the following item shall be
substituted, namely:-
`(i)Shri Justice N. P. Singh,
Judge of the Supreme Court …. Chairman’.”
4. When the evidence on behalf of the riparian States i.e., Tamil
Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala and the Union Territory of Pondicherry had
already been adduced and arguments of the party States had been
heard so far Group I and Group II issues are concerned, unfortunately
Hon’ble Shri Justice S.D. Agarwala expired on 26.11.2002. Because of
the sad demise of Justice S.D. Agarwala, in exercise of power conferred
by section 4, read with section 5A of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act,
1956 (33 of 1956) the Central Government again reconstituted the
Tribunal vide notification dated 7th January 2003 as follows:-
“in the said notification for item (ii), the following item shall be
substituted, namely,
`Shri Justice Sudhir Narayan Agarwal
Judge of the Allahabad High Court….. Member”.

24
5. When the hearing of the reference case had commenced, the
Tribunal directed the party States to file their Statements of case and
affidavits and to furnish information in the Common Format by separate
orders. The State of Tamil Nadu, the State of Karnataka, the State of
Kerala and the Union Territory of Pondicherry filed their respective
Statements of case, in support of their respective claims. The rejoinders
and counter to the rejoinders were filed by the different States. Thereafter
the affidavits of the witnesses which were to be examined on behalf of
the different States were filed. From time to time on the basis of
information sought by the Assessors, the States have supplied the
information in Common Format.
6. On behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, total 9 witnesses, viz, Shri
A. Mohankrishnan (witness No.1), Dr B.B. Sundaresan, (witness No.2),
Shri R. Rangachari, (witness No.3), Dr. M. S. Swaminathan, (witness
No.4), Dr S. Krishnamurthy, (witness No.5), Shri T. R. Ramasamy,
(witness No.6), Dr A.A. Ramasastry, (witness No.7), Shri V.
Chandrasekaran, (witness No.8) and Dr. T. N. Balasubramanian,
(witness No.9) were examined.
7. On behalf of the State of Karnataka, total 6 witnesses, viz, Shri
K.R. Karanth, (witness No.1), Dr I.C. Mahapatra, (witness No.2), Dr J.S.
Kanwar, (witness No.3), Dr D.M. Nanjundappa, (witness No.4), Prof.
Rama Prasad (witness No.5) and Shri D.N. Desai, (witness No.6) were
examined.
25
8. On behalf of the State of Kerala, total 4 witnesses, viz. Dr R.
Gopalakrishnan, (witness No.1) Shri R. Balakrishnan Nair, (witness
No.2), Shri K.E. Damodaran Nayanar, (witness No.3), and Dr E.J.
James, (witness No.4) were examined.
9. On behalf of the Union Territory of Pondicherry Mr. Laurant Saint
Andre, the only witness was examined.
10. The witnesses examined on behalf of one State were cross-
examined by counsel appearing for other States and Union Territory of
Pondicherry. The total pages of depositions on behalf of different States
and Union Territory of Pondicherry come to about 10,000 pages. So far
the documents and publication brought on record by the different party
States in support of their respective claims run into more than 50,000
pages.
11. In view of the resignation of Hon’ble Mr Justice Chittaatosh
Mookerjee, the then Chairman, and the sad demise of Hon’ble Mr Justice
S.D. Agarwala, the party States had to open their case thrice and
explained the issues involved. The arguments in respect of Group I and
II issues by different riparian States had virtually been concluded before
the sad demise of Mr Justice S.D. Agarwala. Because of the
reconstitution of the Tribunal, the arguments in respect of Group I and II
issues were again heard with Hon’ble Mr Justice Sudhir Narain, as a new
Member.
26
12. The arguments and replies on behalf of the States of Kerala,
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry
concluded on 21.04.2006. Thereafter, matters as referred in orders of
various dates (5.5.2006, 10.5.2006, 10.7.2006 and 11.7.2006) were
considered and finally on 27.7.2006, the order in respect of
report/decision under section 5(2) of Inter-State Water Disputes Act,
1956 was reserved.
-------
27
Chapter 2
Background of the Cauvery Water Dispute
The river Cauvery the largest in Southern India rises near Mercara
in the Coorg at an elevation of 1,341m. (4400 ft.) above the sea-level
towards the western Ghat and takes an easterly course passing through
States of Mysore/Karnataka and Madras/Tamil Nadu before joining the
Bay of Bengal. The first important tributary to join the Cauvery,
practically on the border of Coorg and Karnataka Districts, is Harangi.
Other smaller tributaries like Kakkabe, Kadamur and Kummanhole join
and continue to flow eastwards. Two important tributaries i.e.
Hemavathy and Laxmanthirtha join Cauvery later. After it flows further
eastwards below Krishnarajasagar it is joined by another important
tributary i.e. Kabini. Thereafter, two tributaries i.e. Suvarnavathy from
right and Shimsha from the left join the river Cauvery. After
Sivasamudram it passes through the ghats and its width narrows down
considerably. At places it has to pass through a gorge. After flowing
through the gorge, the Cauvery continues its journey towards East and in
that process it forms the boundary between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu
for a distance of about 64 km. (40 miles). Yet another tributary i.e.
Arkavathi joins the river just before it enters Tamil Nadu State.
2. At Hoganekal falls along the common border, the river takes its
course towards South and enters the well-known Mettur reservoir in the
State of Tamil Nadu. Thereafter its further journey continues. The
Bhavani river joins it on the right bank about 45 km. (28 miles) below the
28
Mettur reservoir and it enters the plains of Tamil Nadu where more
tributaries, the Noyil and the Amaravathy join. Immediately below the
Upper Anicut, the river splits into two branches. The northern branch is
called 'Coleroon' and the southern branch retains its original name. The
Upper Anicut was constructed in the year 1886 to facilitate diversion of
the low supplies of the river into Cauvery delta. The two branches join
again forming Srirangam Island. It is said that Chola King constructed the
Grand Anicut at the junction point below the island aforesaid which
formed a great irrigation system in the Thanjavur district in the first
century A.D. There is further split of the Cauvery; into two branches- one
being called Cauvery and the other Vennar. The channels are used as
canals for irrigating the fields in the Cauvery delta. Regulators have
been provided to regulate the supply of water for distributing the Cauvery
waters in the delta. The branches divide and sub-divide into innumerable
smaller branches. The branch which retains the name of the Cauvery
throughout its course enters the Bay of Bengal. The northern branch
known as Coleroon after the bifurcation at the Upper Anicut as
mentioned above continues to flow in the north-easterly direction also to
enter the Bay of Bengal.
3. State-wise distribution of the total length of the river from the head
to its outfall into the sea is, about 320 km. (198 miles) in the State of
Karnataka (the then State of Mysore), 416 km. (258 miles) in Tamil Nadu
and the remaining length of 64 km. (40 miles) forms the common
boundary between the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The total
29
length of the river of Cauvery from the head to its outfall into the sea is
800 km. (496 miles). The total catchment of the Cauvery is 81,155
sq.km. of which the catchment of the river in Karnataka is about 34,273
sq. km., that in Kerala is about 2,866 sq. km. and the remaining area of
44,016 sq. km. in Tamil Nadu.
4. The river Cauvery which is a gift of nature to different States,
through which it passes before reaching the Bay of Bengal, unfortunately
has become a source of dispute and conflict between the State of
Madras/Tamil Nadu and the State of Mysore/Karnataka for sharing its
water for more than 150 years. In the middle of the nineteenth century,
the Mysore Government while restoring their old irrigation works also
wanted to build a number of new irrigation projects. This caused
considerable anxiety to the then State of Madras, who were dependent
on river Cauvery for their irrigation purposes. The Government of
Madras took up the case with Mysore Government and the Government
of India. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the dispute also involved
other rivers emanating from or flowing through Mysore into Madras
Presidency. After great deal of discussions and correspondence an
agreement was finally reached on 18th February 1892 covering inter-
State rivers and it was framed in the form of Rules.
THE MADRAS-MYSORE AGREEMENT OF 1892
RULES DEFINING THE LIMITS WITHIN WHICH NO NEW

IRRIGATION WORKS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE
MYSORE STATE WITHOUT PREVIOUS REFERENCE TO THE
MADRAS GOVERNMENT.
30
I. In these rules -
(1) "New Irrigation Reservoirs" shall mean and include such
irrigation reservoirs or tanks as have not before existed, or,
having once existed, have been abandoned and been in
disuse for more than 30 years past.
(2) A "New Irrigation Reservoir" fed by an anicut across a

stream shall be regarded as a "New Reservoir across" that
stream.
(3) "Repair of Irrigation Reservoirs" shall include (a) increase of

the level of waste weirs and other improvement of existing
irrigation reservoirs or tanks, provided that either the
quantity of water to be impounded, or the area previously
irrigated, is not more than the quantity previously
impounded, or the area previously irrigated by them; and
(b) the substitution of a new irrigation reservoir for and in
supersession of an existing irrigation reservoir, but in a
different situation or for and in supersession of a group of
existing irrigation reservoirs provided that the new work
either impounds not more than the total quantity of water
previously impounded by the superseded works, or
irrigates not more than the total area previously
impounded by the superseded works, or irrigates not more
than the total area previously irrigated by the superseded
works.
(4) Any increase of capacity other than what falls under

"Repair of Irrigation Reservoirs" as defined above shall be
regarded as a "New Irrigation Reservoir".
II. The Mysore Government shall not, without the previous

consent of the Madras Government or before a decision
31
under rule IV below build (a) any "New Irrigation

Reservoirs" across any part of the fifteen main rivers
named in the appended Schedule A, or across any stream
named in Schedule B below the point specified in column
(5) of the said Schedule B, or in any Schedule A, Nos.4 to
9 and 14 and 15, or across any of the streams of Schedule
B, or across the following streams of Schedule A, lower
than the points specified hereunder:
Across 1 Tungabhadra- lower than the road crossing at

Honhalli
" 10. Cauvery - lower than the Ramaswami anicut, and
" 13. Kabini - lower than the Rampur anicut.
III When the Mysore Government desires to construct any

"New Irrigation Reservoir" or any new anicut requiring the
previous consent of the Madras Government under the
last preceding rule, then full information regarding the
proposed work shall be forwarded to the Madras
Government and the consent of the Government shall be
obtained previous to the actual commencement of work.
The Madras Government shall be bound not to refuse
such consent except for the protection of prescriptive right
already acquired and actually existing, the existence,
extent and nature of such right and the mode of exercising
it being in every case determined in accordance with the
law on the subject of prescriptive right to use of water and
in accordance with what is fair and reasonable under all
the circumstances of each individual case.
IV Should there arise a difference of opinion between the

Madras and Mysore Government in any case in which the
consent of the former is applied for under the last
32
preceding rule, the same shall be referred to the final

decision either of arbitrators appointed by both
Governments, or of the Government of India.
V The consent of the Madras Government is given to new

irrigation reservoirs specified in the appended Schedule C,
with the exception of the Srinivasasagara new reservoir,
across the Pennar, the Ramasamudram new reservoir
across the Chitravati, and the Venkatesasagara new
reservoir across the Papaghni. Should, owing to omission
of the Mysore Government to make or maintain these
works in reasonably adequate standard of safety, irrigation
works in Madras themselves in a condition of reasonably
adequate safety, be damaged, the Mysore Government
shall pay to the Madras Government reasonable
compensation for such damage.
As regards the three new reservoirs excepted above the

admissibility of any compensation from Mysore to Madras
on account of loss accruing to Madras irrigation works
from diminution of supply of water caused by the
construction of the said works, will be referred to the
Government of India whose decision will be accepted as
final, and should such compensation be decided to be
admissible, the decision of the Government of India as to
the amount thereof will be accepted, after submission to
them of the claims of Madras which would be preferred in
full detail within a period of five years after the completion
of said works.
VI The foregoing rules shall apply as far as may be to the

Madras Government as regards streams flowing through
British territory into Mysore.
33
Schedule A
Main rivers Remarks.
1.Thungabhadra … ….. …… ……
2. Tunga … ….. ….. Tributary of
Tungabadhra.
3. Bhadra … …. ….. Do
4. Hagari or Vedavati …. ….. Do
5.Pennar or Northern Pinakini …. ……
6.Chitravati ….. ….. Tributary of Pennar
or
Northern Pinakini
7. Papaghni …. …. Do
8. Palar … …. …….. Do
9.Pennar*or Southern Pinakini …….
10. Cauvery … …. …. …….
11. Hemavathi … …. …. Tributary of the
Cauvery.
12. Laxmanthirtha ….. …. Do
13. Kabini …. …. Do
14. Honhole (or Suvernavathy)…. Do
15. Yagachi, up to the Belur Bridge … Tributary of the
Hemavathi.
*Known as the 'Ponniaar' in Madras (Statement of
Case of Govt. of Tamil Nadu Vol;.II 14-15)
5. It appears that some time in the year 1910 the Government of
Mysore formulated its proposal for a reservoir on the Cauvery at
Kannambadi and sought the consent of Madras Government in terms of
the aforesaid agreement of the year 1892. As difference and conflict
arose in respect of this project between the two States, the dispute was
referred to Arbitration in accordance with the Agreement of the year
1892. Sir H.D. Griffin, a Judge of the High Court of Allahabad was
34
appointed Arbitrator. The proceedings began on 16.7.1913 and
concluded on 12.5.1914. The award which was given was not
acceptable to the State of Madras. Then objection was filed before the
Government of India. The Government of India, however, did not
consider desirable to interfere with the said award. Thereafter, the
Madras Government preferred an appeal to the Secretary of State in
July, 1916 requesting for an intervention in the matter in view of the
serious injury which was likely to be caused to the existing irrigated areas
in the State of Madras. The then Government of Mysore objected to the
appeal preferred by the Government of Madras before the Secretary of
State. But the Secretary of State in November 1919 came to the
conclusion that there was a prima facie case for interfering the award on
the ground of error and different options were given to the Mysore
Government in respect of the dispute regarding sharing of the waters.
Ultimately after negotiations another agreement was signed on 18th
February 1924 between the Governments of Madras and Mysore which
is as follows:
Agreement between the Mysore and Madras Governments In

regard to the construction of a dam and reservoir at
Krishnarajasagar - 18th February 1924.
------------
AGREEMENT
1. WHEREAS by an agreement, dated 18th February 1892,

commonly known and cited as the 1892 agreement, entered
into between the Government of His Highness the Maharaja
of Mysore hereinafter referred to as the Mysore Government
and the Government of Madras, hereinafter referred to as the
35
Madras Government, certain rules and schedules, defining

the limits within which the new irrigation works are to be
constructed by the Mysore Government without previous
reference to the Madras Government were framed and
agreed to; and
2. WHEREAS under clause III of the said agreement the

Mysore Government asked for the consent of the Madras
Government to the construction of a dam and a reservoir
across and on the river Cauvery at Kannambadi now known
as the Krishnarajasagar dam and reservoir; and
3. WHEREAS dispute arose as to the terms under which the

Mysore Government were to construct the dam in the manner
and form proposed by them; and
4. WHEREAS such dispute was referred to the arbitration of

Sir H.D. Griffin who gave an award in the year 1914 as to the
terms and conditions under which the Madras Government
should consent to the construction of the said dam and
reservoir; and
5. WHEREAS the Madras Government, after the said award

of the said arbitration was ratified by the Government of India,
appealed to the Secretary of State for India who re-opened
the question; and
6. WHEREAS hereupon the Mysore Government and the

Madras Government with a view to an amicable settlement of
the dispute entered into negotiations with each other; and
7. WHEREAS the result of such negotiations, certain Rules

of Regulation of the Krishnarajasagara reservoir were framed
and agreed to by the Chief Engineers of the Mysore and
36
Madras Governments on the 26th day of July of the year 1921,

such Rules of Regulations forming Annexure I to this
agreement; and
8. WHEREAS thereafter the technical officers of two
Governments have met in conference and examined the
question of irrigation in their respective territories with a view
to reaching an amicable arrangement; and
9. WHEREAS the result of such examination and conference

by the technical officers of the two Governments, certain
points with respect to such extension were agreed to
respectively by the Chief Engineer for Irrigation, Madras, and
the Special Officer, Krishnarajasagara Works at Bangalore,
on the 14th day of September 1923, such points forming
Annexure III to this agreement.
10. NOW THESE PRESENTS witness that the Mysore

Government and the Madras Government do hereby agree
and bind themselves, their successors and representatives as
follows:-
(i) The Mysore Government shall be entitled to

construct and the Madras Government do hereby
assent under clause III of the 1892 agreement to the
Mysore Government constructing a dam and a
reservoir across and, on the river Cauvery at
Kannambadi, now known as the Krishnarajasagara,
such dam and reservoir to be of a storage capacity of
not higher than 112 feet above the sill of the under-
sluices now in existence corresponding to 124 feet
above bed of the river before construction of the dam
and to be of the effective capacity of 44,827 million
cubic feet, measured from the sill of the irrigation
37
sluices constructed at 60 feet level above the bed of

the river up to the maximum height of the 124 feet
above the bed of the river; the level of the bed of the
river before the construction of the reservoir being
taken as 12 feet below the sill level of the existing
under-sluices; and such dam and reservoir to be in all
respects as described in schedule forming Annexure II
to this agreement.
(ii) The Mysore Government in their part hereby

agree to regulate the discharge through and from the
said reservoir strictly in accordance with the Rules of
Regulation set forth in the Annexure I, which Rules of
Regulation shall be and form part of this agreement.
(iii) The Mysore Government hereby agree to

furnish to the Madras Government within two years
from the date of the present agreement dimensioned
plans of anicuts and sluices or open heads at the off-
takes of all existing irrigation channels having their
source in the rivers Cauvery, Lakhmanathirtha and
Hemavathi, showing thereon in a distinctive colour all
alterations that have been made subsequent to the
year 1910, and further to furnish maps similarly
showing the location of the areas irrigated by the said
channels prior to or in the year 1910.
(iv) The Mysore Government on their part shall be

at liberty to carry out future extensions of irrigation in
Mysore under the Cauvery and its tributaries to an
extent now fixed at 110,000 acres. This extent of new
irrigation of 110,000 acres shall be in addition to and
irrespective of the extent of irrigation permissible under
38
the Rules of Regulation forming Annexure I to this

agreement, viz. 125,000 acres plus the extension
permissible under each of the existing channels to the
extent of one-third of the area actually irrigated under
such channel prior to 1910.
(v) The Madras Government on their part agree to

limit the new area of irrigation under their Cauvery
Mettur Project to 301,000 acres, and the capacity of
the new reservoir at Mettur above the lowest irrigation
sluice, to ninety-three thousand five hundred million
cubic feet:
Provided that, should scouring sluices be

constructed in the dam at a lower level than the
irrigation sluice, the dates on which such scouring
sluices are opened shall be communicated to the
Mysore Government.
(vi) The Mysore Government and the Madras

Government agree with reference to the provisions of
clauses (iv) and (v) preceding, that each Government
shall arrange to supply the other as soon after the
close of each official or calendar year, as may be
convenient, with returns of the areas newly brought
under irrigation, and with the average monthly
discharges at the main canal heads, as soon after the
close of each month as may be convenient.
(vii) The Mysore Government on their part agree

that extension of irrigation in Mysore as specified in
clause (iv) above shall be carried out only by means of
reservoirs constructed on the Cauvery and its
39
tributaries mentioned in Schedule A of the 1892

agreement. Such reservoirs may be of an effective
capacity of 45,000 million cubic feet in the aggregate
and the impounding therein shall be so regulated as
not to make any material diminution in supplies
connoted by the gauges accepted in the Rules of
Regulation for the Krishnarajasagara forming Annexure
I to this agreement, it being understood that the rules
for working such reservoirs shall be so framed as to
reduce to within 5 per cent any loss during any
impounding period by the adoption of suitable
proportion factors, impounding formula or such other
means as may be settled at the time.
(viii) The Mysore Government further agree that

full particulars and details of such reservoir schemes
and of the impounding therein shall be furnished to the
Madras Government to enable them to satisfy
themselves that the conditions in clause (vii) above will
be fulfilled. Should there arise any difference of
opinion between the Madras and Mysore Governments
as to whether the said conditions are fulfilled in regard
to any such scheme or schemes, both the Madras and
Mysore Governments agree that such difference shall
be settled in the manner provided in clause (xv) below.
(ix) The Mysore Government and the Madras

Government agree that the reserve storage for power
generation purposes now provided in the
Krishnarajasagara may be utilized by the Mysore
Government according to their convenience from any
other reservoir hereafter to be constructed, and the
storage thus released from the Krishnarajasagara may
40
be utilized for new irrigation within the extent of

110,000 acres provided for in clause (iv) above.
(x) Should the Mysore Government so decide to

release the reserve storage for power generation
purposes from the Krishnarajasagara, the working
tables for the news reservoir from which the power
water will then be utilized shall be framed after taking
into consideration the conditions specified in clause
(vii) above and the altered conditions of irrigation under
the Krishnarajasagara.
(xi) The Mysore Government and the Madras

Government further agree that the limitations and
arrangements embodied in clauses (iv) to (viii) supra
shall, at the expiry of fifty years from the date of the
execution of these presents, be open to
reconsideration in the light of the experience gained
and of an examination of the possibilities of the further
extension of irrigation within the territories of the
respective Governments and to such modifications and
additions as may be mutually agreed upon as the
result of such reconsideration.
(xii) The Madras Government and the Mysore

Government further agree that the limits of extension of
irrigation specified in clauses (iv) and (v) above shall
not preclude extensions of irrigation effected solely by
improvement of duty, without any increase of the
quantity of water used.
(xiii) Nothing herein agreed to or contained shall be

deemed to qualify or limit in any manner the operation
41
of the 1892 agreement in regard to matters other than

those to which this agreement relates or to affect the
rights of the Mysore Government to construct new
irrigation works on the tributaries of the Cauvery in
Mysore not included in Schedule A of the 1892
agreement.
(xiv) The Madras Government shall be at liberty to

construct new irrigation works on the tributaries of the
Cauvery in Madras and, should the Madras
Government construct, on the Bhavani, Amaravathy or
Noyyil rivers in Madras, any new storage reservoir, the
Mysore Government shall be at liberty to construct as
an off-set, a storage reservoir, in addition to those
referred to in clause (vii) of this agreement on one of
the tributaries of the Cauvery in Mysore, of a capacity
not exceeding 60 per cent of the new reservoir in
Madras.
Provided that the impounding in such reservoirs shall
not diminish or affect in any way the supplies to which
the Madras Government and the Mysore Government
respectively are entitled under this agreement, or the
division of surplus water which, it is anticipated will be
available for division on the termination of this
agreement as provided in clause (xi).
(xv) The Madras Government and the Mysore

Government hereby agree that, if at any time there
should arise any dispute between the Madras
Government and the Mysore Government touching the
interpretation or operation or carrying out of this
agreement, such dispute shall be referred for
42
settlement to arbitration, or if the parties so agree shall

be submitted to the Government of India.
P. HAWKINS,
Secretary to the Government,
18th February, 1924 Public Works Department,
Madras
18th February 1924 A.R. BANERJI

Dewan of Mysore
-------------
The relevant part of Annexure I referred to in clause

10(ii) is as follows:
"Limit Gauges and Discharges at the Upper Anicut
7. The minimum flow of the Cauvery that must

be ensured at the upper anicut before any
impounding is made in the Krishnarajasagara, as
connoted by the readings of the Cauvery dam north
gauge, shall be as follows:-
Month Readings of the

Cauvery Dam
North gauge.
June .. Six and a half feet.
July and August .. Seven and a half feet
September .. Seven feet.
October .. Six and a half feet.
November .. Six feet.
December .. Three and a half feet.
January .. Three feet.
43
8. The discharges connoted by the gauge readings

set forth in rule 7 shall, in the case of regulation
during the irrigation season (vide rule 9) of 1921, be
deducted from the average discharge curve derived
from the joint gaugings of the Cauvery at the
Cauvery dam made in the four years ending 1920.
The said discharges shall be revised, if necessary,
after completion of the joint gaugings of 1921 and
shall be used for the purpose of regulation for the
five years ending 1926. The said discharges shall
be finally revised and adopted for all subsequent
regulation, at the conclusion of the joint gauging of
the year 1926, on the basis of the joint gaugings of
the ten years ending 1926.
9. The south-west monsoon shall, for the
purpose of these rules be considered to extend from
the 1st June to the 30th September, both days
inclusive, and the north-east monsoon from the1st
October to the 31st January, both days inclusive.
The irrigation season shall be taken to extend from
the 1st June to the 31st January, both days inclusive.
All dates in this rule shall have reference to the
Upper Anicut.”
6. Annexure III to the agreement of 1924 is in respect of extent of
future extensions of irrigation in Mysore and Madras. The relevant part
thereof is as follows:
“2.The extent of future extension of irrigation in Mysore under the

Cauvery and its tributaries mentioned in Schedule A of the 1892
agreement shall be fixed at 110,000 acres, and Madras shall
have their Cauvery-Mettur project as revised in 1921 with their
44
new area of irrigation fixed at 301,000 acres, as specified in

paragraph 11, page 4 of the Project Report (1921) Volume V.”
7. Yet another agreement was entered into between the Government
of Mysore and the State of Madras in the year 1929 to clarify rules 7 and
8 of the Rules of Regulation of the Krishnarajasagara reservoir which is
as follows:
"AGREEMENT
th
WHEREAS on the 18 February 1924 an agreement between
the Governments of Mysore and Madras was signed and
whereas by clause 10(2) of the said agreement the Mysore
Government agreed to regulate the discharge through and from
the Krishnarajasagara reservoir strictly in accordance with the
Rules of Regulation being Annexure I to the said agreement;
and
WHEREAS disputes had arisen between the two Governments
in regard to the interpretation, operation and carrying out of
rules 7 and 8 of the said Rules and Regulation;
and
WHEREAS both the Governments have submitted the matters
in dispute to the Arbitration of the Honourable Mr. Justice Page
with Messrs. Howley and Forbes as assessors.
Now the two Governments have agreed in lieu of an award in

that behalf to adopt finally for all Regulation subsequent to 1st
July 1929, the following discharges for the respective months in
place of the averages referred to in clause 8 of Annexure I:-
June for 61/2 feet gauge … 29,800 cusecs.
July and August for 71/2 ft. gauge .. 40,100 "
September for 7 feet gauge . 35,000 "
October for 6 1/2 feet gauge 29,800 "
45
November for 6 feet gauge .. 25,033 "

December for 31/2 feet gauge .. 8,913
January for 3 feet gauge .. 6,170 "
and in rule 10, defining the impounding formula, C will denote

the said above mentioned discharges.
THIS agreement is without prejudice to the other questions

outstanding between the parties in regard to the clauses of the
agreement other than clauses 7 and 8 of the Rules of
Regulation.
17th June 1929.

(Signed) R. RANGA RAO (Signed) A.G. LEACH,
Officiating Chief Secretary Secretary to the Government
to the Govt. of Mysore Public Works and Labor
Department, Madras."
8. Clause 10(xi) of the agreement provided for reconsideration of the
limitations and arrangements mentioned in clause 10(iv) to (viii) dealing
with the construction of the new reservoirs, on the expiry of 50 years, i.e.
in the year 1974.
9. After the re-organisation of States in November 1956 part of the
Cauvery catchment in erstwhile North Malabar district (present Wynad
district) came under the Kerala State, along with part of Bhavani sub-
basin of then Madras and portion of Amravathy (Pambar) sub-basin,
which was in Travancore State became part of Kerala because of which
Kerala has now become a Cauvery basin State. Similarly, since part of
the Cauvery delta command lies in the Karaikal region of the Union
46
Territory of Pondicherry, Pondicherry has also been included in the group
of Cauvery basin States.
10. Fresh disputes arose between States of Tamil Nadu and
Mysore/Karnataka when according to the State of Tamil Nadu, the State
of Karnataka unilaterally started construction of the following irrigation
projects on the tributaries of the Cauvery:
The Kabini Reservoir Project

The Hemavathy Reservoir Project,
The Harangi Reservoir Project, and
The Suvarnavathy Reservoir Project.
11. The construction of the aforesaid projects by the State of
Karnataka was objected by Tamil Nadu, on an apprehension that this will
cause a danger to the existing irrigation system in Tamil Nadu. The
objection was also raised on the ground that such action on the part of
the State of Karnataka was against the terms and spirit of aforesaid
agreements of the years 1892 and 1924. No consent or concurrence of
Tamil Nadu had been obtained in terms of those agreements. It was also
pointed out that the projects had not been cleared by the Government of
India and were being executed unilaterally in contravention of the
agreements. It appears that Government of India held several meetings
and conferences to sort out the dispute between two States. When no
solution came forward, the Tamil Nadu Government on 17.2.1970 made
a formal request to the Government of India under Section 3 of the Inter-
State Water Disputes Act of 1956 to refer the Cauvery Water Dispute to a
47
Tribunal for adjudication. Even thereafter further meetings of the Chief
Ministers and Union Minister for Irrigation and Power were held to sort
out the differences. In August 1971 the State of Tamil Nadu filed a Suit
(O.S.1 OF 71) before the Supreme Court of India with a prayer to direct
the Government of India to constitute a Tribunal as per the provisions of
the Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956 and pending disposal of the
Suit to restrain the State of Karnataka by an injunction from proceeding
with their projects which were under construction. It is reported that on
assurance having been given by the then Prime Minister of the
Government of India to negotiate settlement between the two States the
Suit aforesaid was withdrawn in July 1972.
12. In the meeting of the Chief Ministers of the States of Tamil Nadu,
Karnataka and Kerala which had been called by the Union Minister for
Irrigation and Power in May 1972, it was decided that a Committee
should be constituted to collect factual details in respect of the yield and
utilisation of water in the Cauvery basin. The terms of the reference was
as follows:
(i) To collect all the connected data pertaining to Cauvery waters;

its utilisation at different points of time; irrigation practices; as well
as projects both existing, under construction, and proposed in the
Cauvery basin.
(ii) To examine adequacy of the present supplies or excessive use

of water for irrigation purposes.
(iii) To collect data relevant to the use of water in different States

like the physical and other features; cultivated areas; existing and
48
proposed uses for domestic and industrial water supply; hydro-

electric power generation, navigation, salinity control and other
non-irrigational purposes.
(iv) Any other connected matters.
13. An agreement to that effect was put in the form of “Note on
discussion regarding Cauvery held at New Delhi on 29th May 1972”. On
basis of the report of the Cauvery Fact Finding Committee several
discussions were held to arrive at a settlement. Draft proposals brought
out by the Government of India were considered by the States of
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu but no agreement could be arrived at.
14. According to the State of Tamil Nadu while negotiations and
discussions were going on at different levels, the State of Karnataka went
ahead with its projects under construction. It appears that in an inter-
State meeting held in Bangalore in June 1986 a stand was taken by the
Tamil Nadu Government that all efforts to resolve the dispute having
failed during the past 16 years the dispute be referred to a Tribunal in
accordance with the provisions of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act,
1956. It may be mentioned that prior to that, Tamil Nadu Cauvery
Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu
Sangam had filed a Writ Petition No.13347 of 1983 under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the Union of
India to refer the dispute relating to the utilisation of the Cauvery river
water for adjudication by the Tribunal to be constituted under the Inter-
State Water Disputes Act 1956. By an order dated 4th May 1990 passed
49
on the said Writ Petition the Supreme Court after giving brief background
of the dispute directed 'the Central Government to fulfil its statutory
obligation and notify in the official gazette the constitution of an
appropriate tribunal for the adjudication of the water dispute' referred to in
earlier part of the said order and judgment. [The order dated 4th May
1990 is reported in AIR 1990 SC 1316.]
----------
50
Chapter 3
The claim of the Riparian States for

share of waters of Cauvery
Statements of case on behalf of the State of Karnataka, State of
Tamil Nadu, State of Kerala and Union Territory of Pondicherry were filed
along with documents supporting their respective claims. The claims of
different riparian States and Union Territory of Pondicherry in respect of
sharing of the waters are being put in brief in this Chapter because all
these claims have been considered in detail with reference to
documents, evidence, opinion of experts and other circumstances in later
part of this Report in other chapters.
2. Before independence, the then Chief Commissioner's Province of
Coorg, the Princely State of Mysore and the Province of Madras were the
Co-riparian States. The Cauvery basin also comprised parts of the then
Princely States of Travancore and Pudukottai, now part of State of Kerala
and the State of Tamil Nadu respectively. After the changes brought
about subsequent to re-organisation of States in 1956, the river now
covers four States. It flows through Co-riparian States of Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu whereas portions of basin area lie within the territories of
State of Kerala and Union Territory of Pondicherry. Coorg which was
once a Princely State and had become the centrally administered Chief
Commissioner's Province prior to independence, after re-organisation of
States in 1956 became part of the new State of Mysore (now Karnataka)
known as district of Coorg (now called Kodagu). The Princely State of

51
Travancore merged into the Indian Union after independence and a
combined State of Travancore and Cochin along with parts of districts of
South Kanara, Cannanore, Kozhikode and Palghat which were part of
the erstwhile State of Madras formed the new State of Kerala. So far
Princely State of Pudukottai with an area of about 381 sq. km. in the
Cauvery basin became part of State of Madras and now forms part of
State of Tamil Nadu.
3. The erstwhile Princely State of Mysore was re-organised under
the States Re-organisation Act of 1956 comprises the following
territories:
1. The pre-1956 Part-B State of Mysore (including Bellary

District) ;
2. Belgaum district (except Chandgad taluk) and Bijapur,
Dharward and Uttara Kannada districts from the former
Bombay State;
3. Gulbarga district (except Kodangal and Tandur
taluks),Raichur district (except Alampur and Gadwal
taluks) and Bidar district (except Ahmadpur, Nilanga and
Udgir taluks) from the former State of Hyderabad;
4. Dakshina Kannada district (except Kasargod taluk and
Amindivi islands) and Kollegal taluk of Coimbatore district
from the former Madras State; and
5. The Part-C State of Coorg.
4. The re-organisation of States has also affected the area of
Cauvery basin in different States and territories referred to above. The
State of Tamil Nadu has now an area of about 43,868 sq. km. of the
52
Cauvery basin reducing the basin area from about 49,136 sq. km. which
was in the former State of Madras. The area of the Cauvery basin in the
erstwhile State of Mysore (now Karnataka) which was about 28,887 sq.
km. has been enhanced by 5386 sq. km. The total area of the Cauvery
basin in Karnataka is about 34,273 sq. km. So far area of Cauvery basin
in the State of Kerala is about 2866 sq. km. inclusive of about 384 sq.
km. of the erstwhile State of Travancore which has become part of the
State of Kerala. So far the French territory of Pondicherry is concerned,
it became Union Territory under the Constitution of India and its Karaikal
region is about 148 sq. km. containing Cauvery delta.
THE CLAIM OF THE STATE OF KERALA
5. According to the State of Kerala river Cauvery originates on the
eastern slopes of the western ghats and has its huge catchment spread
over the States of Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Three tributaries
of the river, namely, Kabini, Bhavani and Pambar have portions of their
catchments in the State of Kerala. It has been asserted that Kerala's
contribution to the total run-off amounts to 20%, but the said State lags
behind the others so far utilisation of the waters of the Cauvery are
concerned. There are some historical reasons as well for this situation.
Before the re-organisation of the States in the year 1956, neither
Travancore nor Travancore-Cochin State was recognised as an
interested party in the dispute of sharing the water of Cauvery. After the
re-organisation of the State, determined efforts have been made for
improvement of the basin and diversion of the water in Cauvery basin for
53
utilisation by the State, but their several claims had been objected to by
other riparian States. Several claims have been prepared which have
been found to be technically feasible and economically viable, but they
could not be executed because of the attitude of other lower riparian
States and ultimately the State of Kerala had to be dependent on single
crop of paddy. There is much scope for raising second or even third crop
with availability of irrigation facilities from the water available in Cauvery
basin. The terrain is undulating and the ground water potential is
negligible in the State. Because of the special topographical feature of
the Cauvery basin in the State of Kerala, the diversion of the water from
Cauvery basin offers the scope for development of the cheap hydro-
electric power in addition to meeting the need for consumption of water
for irrigation purposes. In spite of several negotiations with the
neighbouring States with the help of the Government of India the projects
prepared for development of the State in respect of the water in the
Cauvery basin within the State of Kerala could not materialise.
According to the State of Kerala along with re-organisation the question
of re-allocation of Cauvery water among the basin States should have
been settled or at least an interim allocation should have been made so
that each State could plan its schemes while Kerala was barred from
taking up any scheme in the basin, Tamil Nadu proceeded with new
constructions utilising Cauvery water for extending irrigation. The Mettur
canal project, Kattalai high level canal and the Pullambadi Canal Scheme
were taken up and the Government of India cleared these projects.

54
Karnataka also embarked upon new irrigation projects utilising Cauvery
water even without clearance from the Government of India.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
6. The stand of the Karnataka is that until the end of the 19th century,
utilisation of waters of the Cauvery in the States of Coorg and Mysore
was primarily from channels drawn from the river bed and from tanks in
small quantities not exceeding 2067 Mm³ (73 TMC) in aggregate. There
was no facility of storage, agricultural operations depended on the
rainfall. The efforts made by the State of Mysore to utilise the waters of
Cauvery for purposes of irrigation were frustrated by the continued
protests of the British Government of Madras. The State of Mysore being
the upper riparian which contributed highest flow to the river was not
allowed to exercise its powers so far utilisation of waters for irrigation was
concerned, because of the protests made by the lower riparian Province
of Madras. After lot of correspondence in the late part of 19th century and
the early 20th century and the subsequent arbitration proceedings the
scheme for storage of the water of Cauvery could be achieved only in
1931, after construction of the Krishnaraja Sagara Dam for the storage
of 1269 Mm³ (44.8 TMC) of water. It has also been pointed out that by
1934, Madras had completed the work of Mettur Dam for storage of 2648
Mm³ (93.5 TMC) of water of Cauvery enabling the cultivation of over
1,21,457 ha (3,00,000 acres) of new area. It is said that after re-
organisation of States and formation of the State of Karnataka covering

55
the areas of the new State of Mysore and others 42.2% of the drainage
area of the Cauvery basin is in Karnataka.
7. The principal tributaries of Cauvery in Karnataka are Harangi, the
Hemavathy, the Lakshmanathirtha, the Kabini, the Shimsha and the
Arkavathi. All these rivers except Kabini rise and flow fully in Karnataka.
Another tributary, Suvarnavathy rises in Tamil Nadu and flows for a short
length, in that State and then flows for the major length before joining the
Cauvery above Sivasamudram in Karnataka. The Cauvery river valley
receives varying degrees of rainfall. Western and Central parts of the
basin receive rainfall in South-West monsoon starting from last week of
May and ending in September. The eastern part is largely helped by
North-East monsoon starting in September and ending in December. It
has been pleaded that from the rainfall studies it shall appear that
Karnataka suffers most, having large cultivable areas with inadequate
rainfall. It has been pointed out that although in the hilly regions forming
part of the Western Ghat system in Karnataka receive very heavy rainfall,
yet other parts of the districts of Mysore, Mandya, Hassan, Tumkur,
Bangalore and Kolar are severely plagued by successive droughts.
Same is not the position of the basin falling in Tamil Nadu. The eastern
part of the basin in Tamil Nadu receives heavy rainfall of North-East
monsoon beginning from the end of September and ending in December.
The Central part of the basin in Tamil Nadu receives both South-West
monsoon and North-East monsoon. On basis of report of Irrigation
Commission, 1972 Vol. I, page 166 it has been alleged that Karnataka
56
has the largest extent of drought prone area in the Cauvery basin,
although it has very large areas of cultivable and cultivated lands in the
Cauvery basin. There is an imperative need to give relief to such areas
by providing proper irrigation facilities. The State has to depend on
surface water allocation in the Cauvery basin because of uncertain
ground water resources due to reduced recharge, general deep water
table and low storage in the aquifer. In respect of the crop pattern in
Karnataka, it has been stated that Ragi, Jowar, Sessamum, Groundnut,
redgram and short duration pulses are the common kharif crops under
rainfed conditions. In some areas, where there were pockets of retentive
soils or where late rains occur, some Rabi crops like Jowar, Bengalgram
and cotton are cultivated. Precarious drought conditions can be met with
irrigation facilities to ensure crops during the entire period from June to
February. For this, the water from Cauvery is necessary.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
8. As already mentioned above because of the letter of complaint
dated 6th July 1986 addressed by the State of Tamil Nadu to the
Government of India and direction given by the Supreme Court on a Writ
Petition filed by Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal
Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Podhugappu Sangam, the reference of the
dispute in respect of the apportionment of the water of river was made to
the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Inter-State Water
Disputes Act, 1956. According to Tamil Nadu, the State of Karnataka
has constructed Kabini Reservoir, Hemavathy Reservoir, Harangi

57
Reservoir, Suvarnavathy Reservoir and other projects for storing water of
river Cauvery much more beyond the limit stipulated in the agreement of
the year 1924 which has resulted materially in diminishing the supply of
waters of Cauvery to Tamil Nadu. This has adversely affected the
Ayacutdars in Tamil Nadu, who had been dependent on the water of river
Cauvery for centuries. The Cauvery which is an east flowing river is the
only major river flowing through the State of Tamil Nadu and the
economy of the State and production of the crops are fully dependent on
its water. Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry are lower
riparians on the said river. Because of the interference in the flow of the
river Cauvery, disputes arose more than a century ago leading to the
agreements of 1892 and 1924 between the erstwhile Governments of
Madras and Mysore, whose successors in interest are the present State
of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. It has been pointed out that the
agreements of the years 1892 and 1924 factually recognise and protect
the prescriptive rights of Tamil Nadu over the water of Cauvery. The
State of Karnataka is at liberty to utilise the water of Cauvery, but not to
the prejudice to the interest of the people of Tamil Nadu. Any claim for
apportionment of the water of an inter-State river has to be judged on
principle of equitable apportionment as well as by the common law of
prescriptive rights. Wherever there is an agreement between the parties
viz. between two or more States regarding the use, development and
control of the waters of an inter-State river and the river valley thereof,
they shall govern the claim of the parties. It has been alleged that
58
construction of Kabini, Hemavathy, Harangi and Suvarnavathy projects
by Karnataka without the consent of Tamil Nadu amounts to violation of
the agreement of the year 1924 and amounts to taking advantage of
Tamil Nadu being the lower riparian State. The Karnataka Government
proceeded with the construction of Kabini Reservoir from 1958 onwards
and completed in 1975. The reservoir as executed has a live capacity of
16 TMC; the ultimate Ayacut and utilisation under the reservoir are
reported to be 4.54 lakhs acres and 57.7 TMC respectively. The
irrigation from the reservoir has commenced from 1975-76 onwards.
Because of the construction of the reservoirs, the inflows into the Mettur
Reservoir have been substantially and materially diminished to the great
prejudice of the State of Tamil Nadu. Reference has been made to
clause 10(iv) of 1924 agreement under which the Karnataka Government
is at liberty to carry out future extension of irrigation from the Cauvery
and its tributaries limited to 1,10,000 acres, by means of reservoirs of an
effective capacity of 45 TMC in aggregate. But as stipulated in clause
10(vii) of the same agreement the impounding therein shall be so
regulated as not to make any substantial diminution in supplies from what
has been detailed in clause 10(ii) by adoption of suitable impounding
formula or such other means as may be settled from time to time. The
State of Karnataka started its reservoir project on Hemavathy, a tributary
of Cauvery in 1960 without consent or intimation to the Government of
Tamil Nadu. The Government of India on protest being lodged by the
State of Tamil Nadu informed the State of Karnataka that there was no
59
question of clearance of the project unless the inter-State aspects were
settled in accordance with the agreement between the two States. Still
the execution of the project commenced and was completed in 1978. It
has been asserted that well established and settled principle is that the
upper riparian State does not have an absolute right to impound or to
utilise the water of an inter-State river. The pre-existing right of the lower
riparian State has to be cleared and preserved. The river Cauvery being
the only major river in Tamil Nadu which has been contributing nearly
50% of the State's surface water use. The upper part of the Cauvery
basin which is above Mettur is influenced by south-west monsoon, while
the lower part is influenced by North-east monsoon. The flow of the river
during the south west monsoon is, to a very great extent, dependent on
the run-off from the hilly catchment above the Sivasamudram falls. The
South West monsoon is more intensive, unfailing and dependable,
spread over a long period. During this period, most of the catchment
lying below the Mettur reservoir, gets practically no benefit excepting a
small portion of the high ranges of the Bhavani and Amaravathi
tributaries, as the catchment lies on the rain-shadow area of Western
Ghats. This part which in the State of Tamil Nadu gets some benefit later
during the North-East monsoon. But this is more often erratic and
undependable, the coastal areas and the Delta occasionally receive
heavy intense rains of very short duration, most of which can be neither
conserved nor utilised in the delta. It has been pointed out that because
of the unique geographical creation of Cauvery basin and also because

60
of the hydrological characteristics, with the upper part in Karnataka
steeply sloping, with lower part in Tamil Nadu having very vast, mildly
sloping alluvial plains, Tamil Nadu is not in a position to avail the benefit
of South-West monsoon fully and has to suffer the damage by the North-
East monsoon. Tamil Nadu had to depend on the flows of river Cauvery
since June onwards, during the South West monsoon and on local rain-
fall during the North-East monsoon. After the commissioning of Mettur
Reservoir in 1934 it has been possible to impound the excess flows and
send down regulated discharges to meet the needs of the river channels
enroute and the delta. A number of regulatory controls have been built in
the delta to regulate the canal supply. This, however, is dependent on
the availability of supplies. In the delta a short-term crop called Kuruvai
is raised between the months of June and September followed by a
medium crop Thaladi between October and February. In single crop
lands which are large in extent, a long-term crop Samba is raised
between July and January. Rice is the dominant crop in the delta
especially in the Thanjavur District. The whole State largely depends on
this District for rice which is the staple food of the people. The alluvial
soil of the delta is ideal for growing rice subject to availability of water. In
isolated pockets, sugarcane, banana and other crops are grown.
UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY
9. The Karaikal region of the Union Territory of Pondicherry is
situated on the South Coromandel Coast. The three sides of Karaikal
region are bounded by Thanjavur district of Tamil Nadu and on the East
61
there is Bay of Bengal. The total area of Karaikal region is 14,920
hectares of which 10,990 hectares are under cultivation. The sub-soil
water is unsuitable for cultivation. The water supplied to Karaikal region
from river Cauvery is made from the branches of the river below Grand
Anicut. When the river Cauvery divides and sub-divides itself and serve
both the irrigation and drainage channels in the Karaikal area. The water
requirements for Karaikal region are as follows:
Sl. Crop Area (hectares) Water Requirement

No. Mc.ft.
1. Samba (single crop) 4760 3006

2. Kuruvai (Kharif
Double crop) 6230 2868
3. Thaladi (Rabi
Double crop) 6230 3366
TOTAL: 17220 ha 9240 Mc.ft.
10. According to the Union Territory of Pondicherry, even under the
French Administration, it had riparian rights in Cauvery waters. The
interest of this territory was taken note of when the aforesaid agreements
of 1892 and 1924 were entered into between the then Government of
Madras and Government of Mysore in connection with the construction of
Krishnarajasagar Dam. Even at the time of construction of Mettur Dam,
French Administration passed its claim to the then Government of
Madras for regulation of the supply of Cauvery water to Karaikal region.
It has been alleged that after 1972 there has been short-fall in the actual
release of water from various rivers. The short-fall has been varying from
about 2 TMC to 6 TMC.
---------
62
Chapter 4
Petitions for interim directions before the Tribunal

and orders passed on 25th June 1991
After the constitution of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal the
Civil Miscellaneous Petition (No.4 of 1990) was filed on behalf of the
State of Tamil Nadu praying that the State of Karnataka be directed not
to impound or utilise water of Cauvery river beyond the extent impounded
by them as on 31st May 1972 which had been agreed upon in the
meeting of the Chief Ministers of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and
Union Territory of Pondicherry in the presence of the Union Minister for
Irrigation and Power. A prayer was also made to restrain the State of
Karnataka from undertaking any new projects, dams, reservoirs etc.
2. This Tribunal on 25.6.1991 after hearing all the party-States and
Union Territory of Pondicherry passed the following order:-
“On 5th January, 1991, we had dismissed the CMP Nos.4 &
9 of 1990 filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and CMP No.5 of 1990,
filed by the Union Territory of Pondicherry, inter alia upon the view
that the Central Government had as yet made no reference to the
Tribunal for adjudication of the interim reliefs prayed in the said
CMPs filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of
Pondicherry, respectively and hence the said petitions for interim
reliefs were not maintainable.
Being aggrieved by our said order, the State of Tamil Nadu
and Union Territory of Pondicherry had respectively filed Civil
Appeal Nos.303-304 of 1991 and Civil Appeal No.2036 of 1991,
before the Supreme Court of India. On 26th April, 1991, the Bench
63
consisting of Kasliwal, Punchhi & Sahai, JJ. allowed the said

appeals, set aside our order dated 5th January, 1991, and directed
that the said CMP Nos.4,5 and 9/90, be decided on merits.
Kasliwal,J. with whom Punchhi, J. agreed, inter alia held that the
requests for expeditious action contained in a passage of the letter
dated 6.7.1986 of the Government of Tamil Nadu and which was
quoted by the learned judge showed that the State of Tamil Nadu
“was claiming for immediate relief as year after year realization at
Mettur was falling etc.” Therefore, the Tribunal was clearly wrong
in holding that the Central Government had not made any
reference for any interim relief. The reliefs prayed by the
appellants in CMP Nos. 4, 5 & 9/90, clearly came within the
purview of the disputes referred by the Central Government under
section 5 of the Act (Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956).
Kasliwal, J. had further observed that in view of the above
circumstances, he did not consider it necessary to decide the
larger question whether a Tribunal constituted under the ‘Act’ has
any power to grant any interim relief. The appellants become
entitled to succeed on the basis of the finding recorded by the
Supreme Court that the reliefs prayed by them in their CMP Nos.4,
5 & 9/90 were covered in the reference made by the Central
Government. In his judgment, Kasliwal, J. also noted that at the
fag end of the arguments it was submitted on behalf of the State of
Karnataka that they were agreeable to proceed with the CMPs on
merits before the Tribunal on the terms that all party States agreed
that all questions arising out of or connected with or relevant to the
water dispute be determined by the Tribunal on merits. Kasliwal,
J. observed that the above terms were not agreed to by the State
of Tamil Nadu as such he was deciding the appeals on merits.
As already mentioned Punchhi, J. agreed with Kasliwal, J. In his
separate judgment, Sahai, J., while concurring that the appeals
should be allowed, observed, inter alia that he had reservations
64
about certain issues including the construction of the letter dated

6th July, 1986. He did not prefer to express any opinion on them
since according to Sahai, J. the States of Karnataka and Kerala
were agreeable to the determination of the applications for interim
relief on merits.
After the Supreme Court rendered the above decision,
these C.M.Ps were again placed before us. Both the State of
Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry, filed applications
for amendment of their respective C.M.Ps Nos. 4 & 9/90 and 5/90
inter alia to incorporate additional prayers therein. In its
amendment application the State of Tamil Nadu also placed on
record certain additional facts. After hearing the parties, we
allowed the said prayers for amendment of CMP Nos.4, 5 & 9/90.
Thereupon, the State of Karnataka filed supplementary objections,
supported by affidavit. The State of Tamil Nadu also filed
rejoinder to the said supplementary objections dated 27th May,
1991.
We are not prepared to give any countenance to the
objections as to the maintainability of these CMPs raised by Mr.
F.S. Nariman, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of
Karnataka. The Supreme Court has directed the Tribunal to
decide these CMPs on merits. Accordingly, it is no longer open to
the State of Karnataka to urge this point of maintainability. The
said direction of the Supreme Court is binding upon the parties
and the Tribunal. It is accordingly, unnecessary for us to notice
the various authorities cited by both sides on the question as to
whether this Tribunal possesses inherent powers and as to
whether it can grant interim reliefs. We have already mentioned
that Kasliwal, J., with whom Punchhi, J. agreed, categorically held
that Tamil Nladu’s prayer for grant of interim relief was covered by
the reference dated 2nd June, 1990, made to this Tribunal.
We proceed to consider the merits of the petitions for
65
emergent reliefs respectively made by the State of Tamil Nadu

and the Union Territory of Pondicherry.
In its CMP No.4 of 1990, the State of Tamil Nadu had
initially prayed for directing the State of Karnataka not to impound
or utilise waters of the Cauvery River beyond "what it was on 31st
May, 1972" agreed by the Chief Ministers of basin States and the
Union Minister for Irrigation and Power. The State of Tamil Nadu
also had prayed for restraining the State of Karnataka from
undertaking or proceeding with any new projects, dams,
reservoirs, canals, etc. without the consent of the State of Tamil
Nadu. The State of Tamil Nadu has now made an additional
prayer for directing the State of Karnataka to make timely and
adequate releases of waters from its storages and reservoirs in
such a manner as to ensure availability of inflow into the Mettur
reservoir of Tamil Nadu on week to week basis as reflected in the
Statement (Annexure I to the Amendment Petition).
Pleadings are not complete, parties have not yet placed on
record all their documents and papers etc. Therefore, we propose
not to make any pronouncement about the Agreement of 1892
between the then princely State of Mysore and then State of
Madras regarding irrigation reservoirs over thirteen major rivers
flowing through the then State of Mysore, including the Cauvery
and its five tributaries viz. Hemavathi, Laxman Thirtha, Kabini,
Suvaranavathi and Yagachi. For the identical reasons, we refrain
from examining the submission of the two sets of contending
parties about the Agreement between the then Mysore and the
then Madras Governments dated 18th February, 1924 under which
Mysore Government became entitled to construct a dam and a
reservoir across and over the river Cauvery at Kannambadi, now
known as Krishnarajasagar, according to the stipulated
specifications. The discharge through and from the said reservoir
was to be strictly in accordance with the Rules and Regulations
66
set forth in Annexure I to the said Agreement. One of the clauses

of the Agreement of 1924 was that Mysore Government would be
at liberty to carry out future extensions of irrigation in Mysore
under the Cauvery and its tributaries to an extent fixed at 1,10,000
acres in addition to the area of irrigation fixed under the Rules and
Regulations. The Madras Government under clause (xiv) of the
Agreement was at liberty to construct on the Bhavani, Amaravathi
or Noyil rivers in Madras any new storage reservoir and Mysore
Government would be at liberty to construct as an offset storage
reservoir in addition to the reservoirs mentioned in clause (vii) of
the said Agreement not exceeding 60% of the new reservoir in
Madras. Clause (xi) of the Agreement of 1924 provided that the
limitations and arrangements in Clauses (iv) to (viii) shall be open
to reconsideration at the expiry of fifty years from the execution of
the Agreement. The parties before us were at variance about the
scope of this clause (xi). Shortly before the expiry of fifty years
from the date of the signing of the Agreement of 1924, discussions
were held on 29th May, 1972, at New Delhi between the Chief
Ministers of Mysore, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The Union Minister
of Irrigation and Power was also present. "The discussions
amongst Chief Ministers revealed general consensus on the three
points as in para 2". Under the paragraph 2.2, the Central
Government was to appoint a Fact Finding Committee to collect all
the connected data pertaining to the Cauvery waters. Paragraph
2.3 provided that by making use of the data, discussions will be
held between the Chief Ministers of the three States to arrive at an
agreed allocation of waters for the respective States. The
paragraph 3 recorded "the Union Government will assist in arriving
at such a settlement in six months, and in the meanwhile no State
will take any steps to make the solution of the problem difficult
either by impounding or by utilising water of Cauvery beyond what
it is at present". The Fact Finding Committee was constituted, and
67
it had submitted its reports. But no final agreement was arrived at

between the States regarding the allocation of waters for the
respective States.
When we are deliberating whether any emergent order
ought to be passed, our prime consideration ought to preserve, as
far as possible, pending final adjudication the rights of the parties
and also to ensure that by unilateral action of one party other party
is not prejudiced from getting appropriate relief at the time of the
passing of the final orders. We ought to also endeavour to
prevent the commission of any act by the parties which might
impede the Tribunal from making final orders in conformity with
the principles of fair and equitable distribution of the waters of this
inter-state river.
Undisputedly, the Cauvery river is an inter-State river.
Therefore, the three States and the Union Territory of Pondicherry
being riparian to the said river are entitled to the release of waters
of the said river in a reasonable and beneficial manner. In the
"Law of International Drainage Basins" edited by A.H. Garretson,
R.D. Hayton & C.J. Olmstead, at page 63 it has been pointed out
that equality of right does not give a co-riparian the right to an
equal division of the waters. Rather, equality of right is the equal
right of each co-riparian State to a division of the waters on the
basis of its economic and social needs, consistent with the
corresponding rights of its co-riparian States, and excluding from
consideration factors unrelated to such needs. At this stage it
would be neither feasible nor reasonable to determine how to
satisfy the needs of each State to the greatest extent possible with
a minimum of detriment to others. We do not also propose at this
stage to enter into the question whether the present use of water
of the river Cauvery either by the State of Tamil Nadu or the State
of Karnataka is the most beneficial use to which the water could
be put to. At an appropriate stage and in the appropriate manner,
68
it may be necessary to consider legitimate economic and social

needs of each State for the purpose of making equitable utilisation
of the waters. The learned editors of the "Law of International
Drainage Basins" at page 64 have pointed out that the multitude of
factors should be examined. "While many factors are relevant, all
are not of equal weight. Existing uses are particularly significant
and are generally entitled to great weight". We are not unmindful
of the further observations made by the learned editors to the fact
that the matter of existing use is most controversial. These points
may arise for our consideration at the time we finally dispose of
the 'Reference'. At this interlocutory stage it would be more in
consonance with the needs of justice to examine the prayers
made by the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of
Pondicherry in the light of the considerations which are germane
for granting or refusing interim reliefs in a list of this kind. We
have already mentioned herein before that pending final
adjudication by materially altering the present position, no party
should be allowed to cause prejudice to the other party or to
obstruct and impede this Tribunal from making its final order in
accordance with the law.
The substance of the allegations made on behalf of the
State of Tamil Nadu in CMP No.4/90 is that by reason of
impounding greater and greater volume of water in the reservoirs
constructed in different tributaries of Cauvery flowing through
Karnataka, the inflow of water into Mettur Dam of Tamil Nadu from
year to year is being reduced. At this stage, we however make it
clear that it will not be appropriate to fix the inflow of water into
Mettur Dam on the basis of their figures at the time of recording of
consensus arrived at the meting of the Chief Ministers of the
States of the then Mysore, Tamil Nadu and Kerala in the presence
of Union Minister of Irrigation and Power, held on 29th May, 1972.
More than eighteen years have elapsed since the recording of
69
said consensus of 29th May 1972 and various subsequent events

also, including construction of additional dams and reservoirs and
other irrigation facilities, have taken place. We do not propose to
examine at this stage the legality or justifiability of erection of
these reservoirs, dams, canals, etc. The said matters may be
gone into if found necessary at the appropriate stage. In this case
it would be in accordance with justice to fix the annual releases
into Mettur Dam by making average of the same for a number of
normal years in the immediate past.
It is pertinent to point out that after the minutes of the
meeting of the Chief Ministers of the States of Mysore, Tamil Nadu
and Kerala were recorded on 29th May, 1972, more than one
attempt were made to estimate the total flow of the water in the
river Cauvery and also to specify the share of utilisation,
particularly by the States of Karnataka and the State of Tamil
Nadu. Since the correctness of the reports made by the Fact
Finding Committee and thereafter by the Study Team under the
Chairmanship of Sri C.C. Patel will hereinafter come up for our
consideration, we propose not to deal with these reports at this
stage. Our attention has also been drawn to the draft Agreements
which were prepared in 1974 and 1976, but were not formally
signed by the contesting States. We may only indicate that the
attempts made in the past to determine the shares of waters to be
allocated to the States and Union Territory of Pondicherry had
been abortive, and the same still remain for adjudication by the
Tribunal. We have already mentioned that at the present stage
we would be guided by consideration of balance of convenience
and maintenance of the existing utilisation so that rights of the
parties may be preserved till the final adjudication. For this
purpose the average of the annual flow of the waters of the river
Cauvery into the reservoir of the Mettur Dam in Tamil Nadu could
serve as a reasonable basis. We are also not unmindful of the
70
fact that besides releases made from Krishnarajasagar and Kabini

Dams of Karnataka, some water from the intermediate catchment
area also flows down into the Mettur Dam. The said fact cannot
be the ground for totally rejecting the prayer of the Tamil Nadu
because the contribution of the said catchment area into the
Mettur Dam is not large enough. We are of the views that there
ought to be the release of waters by Karnataka which is to be fixed
by having regard to the realisation made over a span of years in
the proximate past after excluding abnormally good and
abnormally bad years.
Tamil Nadu has furnished before us the following figures for
the period of ten years, i.e. 1980-81 to 1989-90 of inflow of water
into Mettur Dam.
TMC
1980-81 394.01
1981-82 403.20
1982-83 173.09
1983-84 230.37
1984-85 284.36
1985-86 158.28
1986-87 187.36
1987-88 103.90
1988-89 181.37
1989-90 175.64
In considering these figures we have decided to exclude

the figures for the years, 1980-81 and 1981-82, which were
described by parties as abnormally good years. We have also
excluded from consideration the figures for the years 1985-86,
1987-88 which were classified to be bad years. The average flow
of the remaining six years work out at 205.03 TMC, which may be
rounded of to 205 TMC.
71
Karaikal region of Union Territory of Pondicherry is at the
tail-end of Cauvery delta. Before us submissions were made
about the plight suffered by this area because of utter dearth of
water. The Union Territory of Pondicherry has claimed before us
9.355 TMC of water towards irrigation and water supply etc. In
our view, while making order upon these emergent petitions we
ought to take into consideration the prayer of the Union Territory of
Pondicherry for release of some additional volume of water. We
propose to direct for the ends of justice, release of 6 TMC of water
by Tamil Nadu for Union Territory of Pondicherry.
The grievance of Tamil Nadu broadly was that not only the
total volume of water from Karnataka for flowing down to Mettur
Dam was becoming less and less, but also the said releases were
not being made timely to meet the need of cultivation of crops,
particularly in the Cauvery delta of Tamil Nadu. It would be fair to
direct that annual releases be made in a regulated manner from
week to week basis from June to May.
The State of Kerala has not applied for any interim order,
therefore, this order is without prejudice to the claims and
contentions of the State of Kerala about the equitable distribution
and release of the waters of river Cauvery and its tributaries. We
again make it clear that the interim orders passed today do not
amount to final adjudication of the rights and contentions of the
parties in regard to the dispute referred to this Tribunal.
In view of the above, we direct the State of Karnataka to

release water from its reservoirs in Karnataka so as to ensure that
205 TMC of water is available in Tamil Nadu’s Mettur Reservoir in
72
a year from June to May. This year, the order will be effective
from 1st of July, 1991. We further direct that the State of
Karnataka shall regulate the release of water in the following
manner:-
June 10.16 TMC December 10.37 TMC
July 42.76 “ January 2.51 “
August 54.72 “ February 2.17 “
September 29.36 “ March 2.40 “
October 30.17 “ April 2.32 “
November 16.05 “ May 2.01 “
In respect of a particular month the releases are to be

made in four weeks in four equal instalments. If in a particular
week, it is not possible to release the required quantum of water,
the said deficit shall be made good in the subsequent week. 6
TMC water for Karaikal region of the Union Territory of
Pondicherry will be delivered by the State of Tamil Nadu in a
regulated manner.
We further direct that the State of Karnataka shall not
increase its area under irrigation by the waters of the river
Cauvery beyond existing 11.2 lac acres, as mentioned in their
Annexure K-V, Column 13, at page 103 to the Supplementary
Statement of Objections dated 22nd May, 1991 to the amended
CMP No.4/90.
The above order will remain operative till the final
adjudication of the dispute, referred to the Tribunal.
CMP Nos. 4 and 5/90 are hereby disposed of in the above
terms.
CMP No.9/90 for granting relief pending disposal of CMP
No.4/90 no longer survives, and stands disposed of accordingly.”
--------
73
Chapter 5
The Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection

Ordinance and Reference by President under
Article 143 of the Constitution for opinion of the
Supreme Court and the opinion of the Supreme Court
On 25th July 1991 the Governor of Karnataka promulgated an
Ordinance 'The Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance
1991' to protect the interest of the State of Karnataka and to negate the
effect of the Interim Order aforesaid dated 25-6-1991 passed by the
Tribunal. This led to further controversy. Ultimately on July 27, 1991 the
President under Article 143 of the Constitution referred three questions
for the opinion to the Supreme Court. A 5-Judges Bench of the Supreme
Court answered the reference on 22nd November 1991 [1993 Supp.(1)
SCC 96]. The order of reference says:
"WHEREAS, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section

4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'), the Central Government constituted a
Water Disputes Tribunal called "the Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal" (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") by a notification dated
June 2, 1990, a copy whereof is annexed hereto, for the
adjudication of the Water Dispute regarding the Inter-State River
Cauvery;
WHEREAS on June 25, 1991, the Tribunal passed an
interim order (hereinafter referred to as "the Order"), a copy
whereof is annexed hereto;
WHEREAS, differences have arisen with regard to certain
aspects of the Order;
74
WHEREAS, on July 25, 1991, the Governor of Karnataka

promulgated the Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection
Ordinance, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance"), a
copy whereof is annexed hereto;
WHEREAS, doubts have been expressed with regard to the
constitutional validity of the Ordinance and its provisions;
WHEREAS, there is likelihood of the constitutional validity
of the provisions of the Ordinance, and any action taken
thereunder, being challenged in courts of law involving protracted
and avoidable litigation;
WHEREAS, the said differences and doubts have given
rise to a public controversy which may lead to undesirable
consequences;
AND WHEREAS, in view of what is hereinbefore stated, it
appears to me that the following questions of law have arisen
and are of such nature and of such public importance that it is
expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India
thereon;
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred
upon me buy clause (1) of Article 143 of the Constitution of India,
I, Ramaswamy Venkataraman, President of India, hereby refer
the following questions to the Supreme Court of India for
consideration and report thereon, namely:
(1) Whether the Ordinance and the provisions thereof are in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution;
(2) (i) Whether the Order of the Tribunal constitutes a report
and a decision within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the
Act; and
(ii) Whether the Order of the Tribunal is required to be
published by the Central Government in order to make it
effective;
75
(3) Whether a Water Disputes Tribunal constituted under the

Act is competent to grant any interim relief to the parties to
the dispute."
2. The Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance

1991
“1. Short title, extent and commencement -
(1) This Ordinance may be called the Karnataka Cauvery

Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance, 1991.
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Karnataka.
(3) It shall come into force at once.
2. Definition - Unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) Cauvery basin' means the basin area of the Cauvery river
and its tributaries lying within the territory of the State of
Karnataka
(b) `Irrigable area' means the areas specified in the Schedule.
(c) `Schedule, means the Schedule annexed to this
Ordinance.
(d) `Water year' means the year commencing with the first of
June of a calendar year and ending with the thirty-first of May of
the next calendar year.
3. Protection of irrigation in irrigable area:-
(1) It shall be the duty of the State Government to protect, preserve
and maintain irrigation from the waters of the Cauvery river and
its tributaries in the irrigable area under the various projects
specified in the Schedule.
(2) For the purpose of giving effect to sub-section `(1) the State
Government may abstract or cause to be abstracted, during
every water year, such quantity of water as it may deem
requisite, from the flows of the Cauvery river and its tributaries, in
76
such manner and during such intervals as the State Government

or any officer, not below the rank of an Engineer-in-Chief
designated by it, may deem fit and proper.’
4. Overriding effect of the Ordinance - The provisions of this
Ordinance, (and of any Rules and Orders made thereunder), shall
have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any order,
report or decision of any Court or Tribunal (whether made before
or after the commencement of this Ordinance), save and except a
final decision under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5
read with Section 6 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.
5. Power to remove difficulties - If any difficulty arises in giving

effect to the provisions of this Ordinance, the State Government
may, by order, as occasion requires, do anything (not inconsistent
with the provisions of this Ordinance) which appears to be
necessary for the purpose of removing the difficulty.
6. Power to make rules - (1) The State Government may, by

notification in the official Gazette make rules to carry out the
purpose of this Ordinance.
(2) Every rule made under this Ordinance shall be laid as soon as
be after it is made, before each House of the State legislature
while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be
comprised in one session or in two or more sessions and if before
the expiry of the said period, either House of the State Legislature
makes any modification in any rule or order or directs that any rule
or order shall not have effect, and if the modification or direction is
agreed to by the other House, such rule or order shall thereafter
have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the
case may be."
The Ordinance was replaced by an Act (Act 27 of 1991).

77
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3. In connection with the question as to whether the provisions of the
Ordinance were constitutional, the relevant portion of the opinion of the
Supreme Court dated 22.11.1991 {1993 Supp(1) SCC 96 at 138-143} is
reproduced :
"70. The above analysis of the relevant legal provisions dealing

with the inter-State rivers and river valleys and their waters shows
that the Act, viz., the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 can be
enacted and has been enacted only under Article 262 of the
Constitution. It has not been enacted under Entry 56 as it relates
to the adjudication of the disputes and with no other aspect either
of the inter-State river as a whole or of the waters in it.
71. It will be pertinent at this stage also to note the true legal
position about the inter-State river water and the rights of the
riparian States to the same. In State of Kansas v. State of
Colorado 51-52 L Ed 956, 975: (206) US 46 the Supreme Court of
the United States has in this connection observed as follows:
“One cardinal rule, underlying all the relations of the States

to each other, is that of equality of right. Each State stands
on the same level with all the rest. It can impose its own
legislation on no one of the others, and is bound to yield its
own views to none.. the action of one State reaches, through
the agency of natural laws, into the territory of another State,
the question of the extent and the limitations of the rights of
the two States becomes a matter of justiciable dispute
between them and this Court is called upon to settle that
dispute in such a way as will recognise the equal rights of
both and at the same time establish justice between them.
78
The dispute is of a justiciable nature to be adjudicated by the

Tribunal and is not a matter of legislative jurisdiction of one
State…….
‘The right to flowing water is now well settled to be a right

incident to property in the land; it is right publici juris, of such
character that, whilst it is common and equal to all through
whose land it runs, and no one can obstruct or divert it, yet, as
one of the beneficial gifts of Providence, each proprietor has a
right to a just and reasonable use of it, as it passes through his
land, and so long as it is not wholly obstructed or diverted, or
no larger appropriation of the water running through it is made
than a just and reasonable use, it cannot be said to be
wrongful or injurious to a proprietor lower down…….’
The right to the use of the flowing water is publici juris, and
common to all the riparian proprietors; it is not an absolute and
exclusive right to all the water flowing past their land, so that
any obstruction would give a cause of action; but it is a right to
the flow and enjoyment of the water, subject to a similar right in
all the proprietors, to the reasonable enjoyment of the same gift
of Providence. It is, therefore, only for an abstraction and
deprivation of this common benefit, or for an unreasonable and
unauthorised use of it that an action will lie.”
72. Though the waters of an inter-State river pass through the

territories of the riparian States such waters cannot be said to
be located in any one State. They are in a state of flow and no
State can claim exclusive ownership of such waters so as to
deprive the other States of their equitable share. Hence in
respect of such waters, no state can effectively legislate for the
use of such waters since its legislative power does not extend
beyond its territories. It is further an acknowledged principle of
distribution and allocation of waters between the riparian
79
States that the same has to be done on the basis of the

equitable share of each State. What the equitable share will
be will depend upon the facts of each case. It is against the
background of these principles and provisions of law we have
already discussed that we have to examine the respective
contentions of the parties.
73. The Ordinance is unconstitutional because it affects the

jurisdiction of the Tribunal appointed under the Central Act,
viz., the Inter-State Water Disputes Act which legislation has
been made under Article 262 of the Constitution. As has been
pointed out above, while analysing the provisions of the
Ordinance, its obvious purpose is to nullify the effect of the
interim order passed by the Tribunal on June 25, 1991. The
Ordinance makes no secret of the said fact and the written
statement filed and the submissions made on behalf of the
State of Karnataka show that since according to the State of
Karnataka the Tribunal has no power to pass any interim order
or grant any interim relief, as it has done by the order of June
25, 1991, the order is without jurisdiction and, therefore, void
ab initio. This being so, it is not a decision, according to
Karnataka within the meaning of Section 6 and not binding on it
and in order to protect itself against the possible effects of the
said order, the Ordinance has been issued. The State of
Karnataka has thus arrogated to itself the power to decide
unilaterally whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass the
interim order or not and whether the order is binding on it or
not. Secondly, the State has also presumed that till a final
order is passed by the Tribunal, the State has the power to
appropriate the waters of the river Cauvery to itself unmindful
of and unconcerned with the consequences of such action on
the lower riparian States. Karnataka has presumed that it has
80
superior rights over the said waters and it can deal with them in
any manner. In the process, the State of Karnataka has also
presumed that the lower riparian States have no equitable
rights and it is the sole judge as to the share of the other
riparian States in the said waters. What is further, the State of
Karnataka has assumed the role of a judge in its own cause.
Thus, apart from the fact that the Ordinance directly nullifies
the decision of the Tribunal dated June 25, 1991, it also
challenges the decision dated April 26, 1991 of this Court
which has ruled that the Tribunal had power to consider the
question of granting interim relief since it was specifically
referred to it. The Ordinance further has an extra-territorial
operation inasmuch as it interferes with the equitable rights of
Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry to the waters of the Cauvery river.
To the extent that the Ordinance interferes with the decision of
this Court and of the Tribunal appointed under the Central
legislation, it is clearly unconstitutional being not only in direct
conflict with the provisions of Article 262 of the Constitution
under which the said enactment is made but being also in
conflict with the judicial power of the State.
74. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court

in Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. New Shrock Spg. &
Wvg. Co. Ltd. (1970) 2 SCC 280; (1971) 1 SCR 288. The facts
in this case were that the High Court as well as this Court had
held that property tax collected for certain years by the
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation was illegal. In order to
nullify the effect of the decision, the State Government
introduced Section 152-A by amendment to the Bombay
Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, the effect of which was to
command the Municipal Corporation, to refuse to refund the
amount illegally collected despite the orders of this Court and
81
the High Court. This Court held that the said provision makes
a direct inroad into the judicial powers of the State. The
legislatures under the Constitution have, within the prescribed
limits, power to make laws prospectively as well as
retrospectively. By exercise of those powers a legislature can
remove the basis of a decision rendered by a competent court
thereby rendering the decision ineffective. But no legislature in
the country has power to ask the instrumentalities of the State
to disobey or disregard the decisions given by the courts.
Consequently, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 152-
A were held repugnant to the Constitution and were struck
down. To the same effect is another decision of this Court in
Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCC 50:
1978 SCC (L & S) 103: (1978) 3 SCR 334. In this case a
settlement arrived at between the Life Insurance Corporation
and its employees had become the basis of a decision of the
High Court of Calcutta. This settlement was sought to be
scuttled by the Corporation on the ground that they had
received instructions from the Central Government that no
payment of bonus should be made by the Corporation to its
employees without getting the same cleared by the
Government. The employees, therefore, moved the High
Court, and the High Court allowed the petition. Against that, a
letters patent appeal was filed and while it was pending, the
Parliament passed the Life Insurance Corporation (Modification
of Settlement) Act, 1976 the effect of which was to deprive the
employees of bonus payable to them in accordance with the
terms of the settlement and the decision of the Single Judge of
the High Court. On this amendment of the Act, the Corporation
withdrew its appeal and refused to pay the bonus. The
employees having approached this Court challenging the
constitutional validity of the said legislation, the Court held that
82
it would be unfair to adopt legislative procedure to undo a

settlement which had become the basis of a decision of the
High Court. Even if legislation can remove the basis of a
decision, it has to do it by alteration of general rights of a class
but not by simply excluding the specific settlement which had
been held to be valid and enforceable by a High Court. The
object of the Act was in effect to take away the force of the
judgment of the High Court. The rights under the judgment
would be said to arise independently of Article 19 of the
Constitution.
75. Yet another decision of this Court on the point is P.

Sambamurthy v. State of A.P. (1987) 1 SCC 362: (1987) 2
ATC 502: (1987) 1 SCR 879. In this case what was called in
question was the insertion of Article 371-D of the Constitution.
Clause (5) of the article provided that the order of the
Administrative Tribunal finally disposing of the case would
become effective upon its confirmation by the State
Government or on the expiry of three months from the date on
which the order was made, whichever was earlier. The proviso
to the clause provided that the State Government may by
special order made in writing for reasons to be specified
therein, modify or annul any order of the Administrative
Tribunal before it became effective and in such a case the
order of the Tribunal shall have effect only in such modified
form or be of no effect. This Court held that it is a basic
principle of the rule of law that the exercise of power by the
executive or any other authority must not only be conditioned
by the Constitution but must also be in accordance with law,
and the power of judicial review is conferred by the
Constitution with a view to ensuring that the law is observed
and there is compliance with the requirement of the law on the
83
part of the executive and other authorities. It is through the

power of judicial review conferred on an independent
institutional authority such as the High Court that the rule of
law is maintained and every organ of the State is kept within
the limits of the law. If the exercise of the power of judicial
review can be set at naught by the State Government by
overriding the decision given against it, it would sound the
death knell of the rule of law. The rule of law would be
meaningless, as it would be open to the State Government to
defy the law and get away with it. The proviso to clause (5) of
Article 371-D was, therefore, violative of the basic structure
doctrine.
76. The principle which emerges from these authorities is

that the legislature can change the basis on which a decision is
given by the Court and thus change the law in general, which
will affect a class of persons and events at large. It can not,
however, set aside and individual decision inter parties and
affect their rights and liabilities alone. Such an act on the part
of the legislature amounts to exercising the judicial power of
the State and to functioning as an appellate court or tribunal.
77. The effect of the provisions of Section 11 of the present

Act, viz., the Inter-State Water Disputes Act read with Article 262
of the Constitution is that the entire judicial power of the State and,
therefore, of the Courts including that of the Supreme Court to
adjudicate upon original dispute or complaint with respect to the
use, distribution or control of the water of, or in any inter-State
river or river valleys has been vested in the Tribunal appointed
under Section 4 of the said Act. It is, therefore, not possible to
accept the submission that the question of grant of interim relief
falls outside the purview of the said provisions and can be agitated
under Article 131 of the Constitution. Hence any executive order
84
or a legislative enactment of a State which interferes with the

adjudicatory process and adjudication by such tribunal is an
interference with the judicial power of the State. In view of the fact
that the ordinance in question seeks directly to nullify the order of
the Tribunal passed on June 25, 1991 it impinges upon the judicial
power of the State and is, therefore, ultra vires the Constitution.
78. Further, admittedly, the effect of the Ordinance is to affect the

flow of the waters of the river Cauvery into the territory of Tamil
Nadu and Pondicherry which are the lower riparian States. The
Ordinance has, therefore, an extra-territorial operation. Hence the
Ordinance is on that account beyond the legislative competence of
the State and is ultra vires the Provisions of Article 245 (1) of the
Constitution.
79. The Ordinance is also against the basic tenets of the Rule of
Law inasmuch as the State of Karnataka by issuing the Ordinance
has sought to take law in its own hand and to be above the law.
Such an Act is an invitation to lawlessness and anarchy, inasmuch
as the Ordinance is a manifestation of a desire on the part of the
State to be a judge in its own cause and to defy the decisions of
the judicial authorities. The action forebodes evil consequences to
the federal structure under the Constitution and opens doors for
each State to act in the way it desires disregarding not only the
rights of the other States, the orders passed by instrumentalities
constituted under an Act of Parliament but also the provisions of
the Constitution. If the power of a State to issue such an
Ordinance is upheld it will lead to the breakdown of the
constitutional mechanism and affect the unity and integrity of the
nation.”
4. On the aforesaid findings, the Ordinance was held to be invalid
and unconstitutional and beyond the legislative competence of the State.
In respect of the third question as to whether the Water Disputes Tribunal

85
constituted under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956 was
competent to grant an interim relief to the parties to the dispute during
the pendency of the reference by the Central Government, it was held
that as the Supreme Court had already expressed its view in its aforesaid
order dated 26th April 1991 [1991 Supp. (1) SCC 240] on appeal being
filed on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of
Pondicherry saying that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the
question of grant of interim relief; such question being a matter
connected with or relevant to the water dispute within the meaning of
Section 5(1) of the Act, the said order had become final. In that situation,
it was not open in the Presidential Reference to sit in appeal to the said
decision. It was said “It cannot be said that this Court had not noticed the
relevant provisions of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act. The Court after
perusing the relevant provisions of the Act which were undoubtedly
brought to its notice has come to the conclusion that the Tribunal had
jurisdiction to grant interim relief when the question of granting interim
relief formed part of the Reference. There is further no violation of any of
the principles of natural justice or of any provision of the Constitution.
The decision also does not transgress the limits of the jurisdiction of this
Court. We are, therefore, of the view that the decision being inter parties
operates as res judicata on the said point and it cannot be reopened.”
5. So far question No.2 referred to the Supreme Court as to whether
the interim order of the Tribunal constitute a report and a decision within
the meaning of Section 5(2) of the Act which was required to be

86
published by the Central Government in order to make it effective, it was
said:
“The interim orders passed or reliefs granted by the Tribunal when

they are not of purely procedural nature and have to be
implemented by the parities to make them effective, are deemed
to be a report and a decision within the meaning of Sections 5(2)
and 6 of the Act. The present order of the Tribunal discusses the
material on the basis of which it is made and gives a direction to
the State of Karnataka to release water from its reservoirs in
Karnataka so as to ensure that 205 TMC of water is available in
Tamil Nadu’s Mettur reservoir in a year from June to May. It
makes the order effective from July 1, 1991 and also lays down a
timetable to regulate the release of water from month to month. It
also provides for adjustment of the supply of water during the said
period. It further directs the State of Tamil Nadu to deliver 6 TMC
of water for the Karaikal region of the Union Territory of
Pondicherry. In addition, it directs the State of Karnataka not to
Cauvery beyond the existing 11.2 lakh acres. It further declares
that it will remain operative till the final adjudication of the dispute.
Thus the order is not meant to be merely declaratory in nature but
is meant to be implemented and given effect to by the parties.
Hence, the order in question constitutes a report and a decision
within the meaning of Section 5(2) and is required to be published
by the Central Government under Section 6 of the Act in order to
be binding on the parties and to make it effective.” [1993 SCC (II)
PARA 97]
The Government of India notified the order vide Government of India,

Ministry of Water Resources Notification No. S.O. 840(E) dated 10
December, 1991.
---------
87
Chapter 6
Order of the Tribunal dated 3.4.1992 on the

Petition on behalf of Karnataka before Tribunal
for recall of order dated 25th June 1991
On 25th November 1991 the State of Karnataka filed Civil
Miscellaneous Petition No.15/91 with a prayer that the Tribunal may
recall its aforesaid order dated 25th June 1991 or clarify the same. That
petition was rejected on 3.4.1992 by an order as follows:
“On 25th November, 1991, the State of Karnataka, filed the present
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.15 of 1991, with the prayer, that
“this Tribunal may call the records and its decision dated 25th
June, 1991, and after examining the same the
explanations/clarifications, mentioned in CMP 15/91, may be given
and the order may be further considered for the said purpose”. In
its cause title, CMP 15/91 is described as a Reference under
section 5(3) of the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956
(hereinafter called the ‘Act’) and at the same time it is described
as a petition “for further consideration of the matter and for
modification of the order dated the 25th June, 1991”.
By the said order dated 25th June, 1991 we had disposed of

CMP Nos. 4 & 9/90, filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and CMP
No.5/90, filed by the Union Territory of Pondicherry. We had inter
alia, directed the State of Karnataka to release water from its
reservoirs so as to ensure 205 TMC of water to the State of Tamil
Nadu at their Mettur reservoir in a year from June to May. We had
further directed the State of Karnataka to regulate the releases in
the manner set out in our said order. Out of the said 205 TMC of
water, 6 TMC of water was to be delivered by the State of Tamil
88
Nadu for Karaikal region of the Union Territory of Pondicherry.

We had also directed that the State of Karnataka shall not
Cauvery beyond the existing 11.2 lakh acres as mentioned in their
Annexure K-V, Column 13 at page 103 of the Supplementary
Statement of Objections to CMP No. 4/90, filed on 22nd May, 1991.
The Tribunal had forwarded its order dated 25th June, 1991
to the Central Government. On 27th July, 1991, President of India
made a Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India to
the Supreme Court of India (Special Reference No.1 of 1991). On
22nd November, 1991, the Supreme Court of India disposed of
th
the said Reference and rendered its opinion. On 25 November,
1991, the State of Karnataka filed the present CMP No.15 of 1991.
Our direction that the above order dated 25th June, 1991
would remain operative till the final adjudication of the dispute
ought to be read in the context of the observations made by the
Supreme Court both in their judgment dated 26.4.1991 in Civil
Appeal Nos.303-304 of 1991 in C.A. No.2036 of 1991, and also
the Supreme Court order in the Special Reference No.1/91 dated
22.11.1991. Therefore, it is now the undisputed position that our
order dated 25.6.1991 was an award under section 5(2) of the Act,
disposing of applications for interim reliefs made by the State of
Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The said
decision in the opinion of the Supreme Court attracted provisions
of both sub-section (3) of section 5 as well as those of section 6 of
the Act.
The Central Government or the State Government under

sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act can apply to the Tribunal for
further consideration of the Tribunal’s decision, when anything in
that decision rendered under sub-section (2) of section 5 of the
Act, requires explanation or that guidance is needed upon any
point not originally referred to the Tribunal. It is not the case of
89
Karnataka that the CMP 15/91 relates to any point which was not
originally referred to the Tribunal. Therefore, the first point is
whether anything in our decision dated 25.6.91 requires
‘explanation’ in terms of section 5(3) of the Act.
In the absence of any definition of the expression

“explanation”, in the Act itself, we may consider its ordinary
meaning. According to the dictionary meaning ‘explanation’ is: to
make plain, to make clear or evident, to make intelligible, to
account for, etc. (vide New Webster’s Dictionary of the English
Language, 1981 Edn.(p.346) International Edition; Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary, Volume I (p.706) Edn.1977). Thus, even if the
expression ‘explanation’ is very liberally interpreted, it cannot
mean review. The CMP 15/91 has not been made for rendering
intelligible our order dated 25.6.91, but is really for modification
and review of the same. We have already set out the cause title
of prayers made in CMP No.15/91. We may also refer to
paragraph 21 of CMP 15/91, which reads as follows:-
“Without prejudice to the foregoing it is submitted that, apart

from provisions of section 5(3) of the Act, this Hon’ble
Tribunal has in any case power to review and modify the
order dated 25th June, 1991, especially as it is an interim
order and the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal is also
invoked.”
The State of Karnataka in paragraph 10 of its CMP 15/91 has

claimed that it was impracticable to give the releases ordered by
us as the same allegedly having not been linked to the availability
of the flows. In paragraph 11, it has prayed for lifting our restraint
order imposed upon the acreage area irrigated by the Cauvery
waters within the Karnataka State to 11.2 lakh acres. We need
not set out the several other paragraphs in the CMP 15/91 which
also clearly show that the present reference has been made by
90
Karnataka for modification and/or review of our order dated

25.6.91.
At the time of hearing also, the main thrust of the

submission on behalf of the State of Karnataka has been that our
order for maintaining the flow of 205 TMC of water at Mettur and
for preparation of the roster for monthly releases were erroneous
and the said orders ought to be recalled, altered, or modified.
In the above view, it is unnecessary for us to examine in

detail the rival submissions on the question whether the period of
three months prescribed for making a reference under section 5(3)
of the Act, is one of limitation or it is merely a directory one.
According to the learned counsel for the State of Karnataka the
period has been mentioned in order to ensure diligence in making
a reference under section 5(3) of the Act to the Tribunal which,
delivered its order under section 5(2) of the Act. While the Senior
Counsel, for the State of Karnataka, contended before us that
having regard to the scheme of the Act and intention of the
Legislation, it was not mandatory for the Central Government or
the State Government concerned to make a reference under
section 5(3) strictly within three months, the Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, on the other hand,
pleaded that section 5(3) prescribed a period of limitation and,
therefore, the present reference/application which was filed
beyond the period of three months from the date of passing of our
order under section 5(2) of the Act was liable to be rejected, in
limine, on the ground of limitation alone.
We are of the view that the Karnataka’s petition is in

substance for modification or review. Accordingly, it is not
necessary for us to decide whether sections 5 and 14 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 could be invoked for condonation of delay,
and/or for enlargement of time in the event a reference under
91
section 5(3) of the Act, is made beyond the period of three months
from the date of the order passed under section 5(2) of the Act.
The learned counsel for the State of Karnataka, submitted
before us that the scheme of the Article 262 of the Constitution of
India read with the provisions of the Act is that the tribunal to
which a reference of river water dispute is made, is the exclusive
original forum for adjudication, in accordance with law in exclusion
of the jurisdiction of other courts, including the Supreme Court.
His submission, therefore, is that this legal position is also
indicated by absence of any provision in the Act for appeal against
the award of the Tribunal. Relying upon some of the observations
about the legal status of this Tribunal, made by the Supreme Court
in answering the Special Reference No.1 of 1991, the learned
Counsel for the Karnataka, wanted to submit before us that the
entire judicial power of the State in relation to the inter-State water
dispute having been vested in the Tribunal, it is endowed with all
the powers of the Civil Court, including the power to alter or also to
review its orders/awards. Contrary to the stand taken earlier at
the time of the hearing of CMPs 4 and 9 of 1990 by the State of
Karnataka, its learned counsel has now submitted that this
Tribunal was endowed with all the powers of civil court including
the power to act ex debito justitiae and to exercise inherent power
to amend and modify its orders. For disposing of the present CMP
15/91, it is unnecessary for us to address ourselves to these wider
questions relating to the legal position of this Tribunal and
amplitude of its jurisdiction and particularly the extent of its power
to act ex debito justitiae.
There are serious impediments in the way of treating CMP

15/91 as one for review of our order dated 25.6.1991. In the first
place, sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act provides that the
Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (to be hereinafter
92
referred to as ‘Code’) in respect of the matters specified in clauses

(a) to (c) of the said sub-section and any other matter which may
be prescribed under clause (d) of sub-section (1). The provisions
of Order XLVII of the Code have been neither specified in the said
clauses (a) to (c) nor they have been prescribed under section
9(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, in terms, the provisions of Order
XLVII of the code, are not attracted. The learned Counsel for
Tamil Nadu has also relied upon several authorities in support of
his submission that the law does not generally recognize the
power of courts, tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies to review their
decisions in exercise of their inherent powers. (See: Harabhajan
Singh Vs. Karam Singh, AIR 1966 SC 641, P.N. Thakershi Vs.
Crdyuman Singhiji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 at 1275 & Chandraban
Singh Vs. Latafat Ullah, AIR 1978 SC 1814 at 1817 ).
Even if it is held that the CMP 15/91 does not come within
the scope, either of section 5(3) or of the provisions for review, the
same may not necessarily entail dismissal of the petition made by
the State of Karnataka.
On a reading of the application moved on behalf of the

State of Karnataka, we have already observed that by filing CMP
15 of 1991, State of Karnataka is not seeking any explanation or
guidance in respect of the interim order dated 25th June, 1991,
but it wants modification of the same.
Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State of

Karnataka, has urged that an interim or interlocutory order of a
judicial authority can be modified if it is shown that it causes
hardship, or is unworkable, or on account of change of
circumstances or on account of some new material not available
when the order was made. In this connection, he has relied upon
the second Proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 4, of the Code, which
was inserted by the 1976 Amendment and which gave recognition
93
to the well settled view of the nature of the interim orders. Order
XXXIX, Rule 4, of the Code including the second proviso, is
quoted below:
“Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside:-
Any order for an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or

set aside by the Court, on application made thereto by any
party dissatisfied with such order.
Provided that if in an application for temporary injunction or

in any affidavit supporting such application, a party has
knowingly made a false or misleading statement in relation
to a material particular and the injunction was granted
without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall
vacate the injunction unless, for reasons to be recorded, it
considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interests of
justice.
Provided further that where an order for injunction has been

passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard,
the order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside on the
application of that party except where such discharge,
variation or setting aside has been necessitated by a change
in the circumstances or unless the Court is satisfied that the
order has caused undue hardship to that party.”
The second proviso, quoted above, clearly contemplates

that where an order of injunction has been passed after giving to a
party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be
discharged, varied or set aside except where such discharge,
variation or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in
the circumstances or unless the Court is satisfied that the order
has caused undue hardship to that party.
94
Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil

Nadu, has, in his submission, not disputed that it would be
competent for the Tribunal to alter or vary an interlocutory order
made by it earlier, if such alteration or variation is necessitated by
reason of new facts or new situations emerging subsequently. It
has been further accepted that the Tribunal’s power in this regard
would be the same as that of the power of a Court which is
competent to pass an interlocutory order of various kinds, like
orders of stay, injunction or receiver etc. To ensure that the
parties might not be prejudiced by the normal delay which the
proceedings before the Court usually take and, consequently, it
has been urged that on proof of new facts or new situations
emerging subsequent to the passing of the earlier interim order by
the Tribunal, it would be open to the Tribunal to modify its earlier
interim order.
From the above submissions made on behalf of the State

of Karnataka as well as on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, it is
clear that it is not disputed that it is open to the Tribunal to alter or
vary an interim/interlocutory order passed by it on a change in the
circumstances.
Under section 9 of the Act, which we have already referred

the Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil
court under the Code in respect of matters enumerated in Clauses
(a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act. Clause
(d) to sub-section (1) of Section 9 provides that such other
provisions of the Code would be applicable to the Tribunal which
is prescribed. Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code is not one of the
Orders which has been prescribed to be made applicable in the
case of a Tribunal. But, in our opinion, even if technically Order
39 Rule 4 of the Code does not apply in the case of an
interlocutory order passed by a Tribunal, nevertheless the
principles enumerated in the Second Proviso to Order 39 Rule 4 of
95
the Code quoted above, would apply because the Tribunal is

required to act in accord with justice and to adopt a procedure
which achieves the said object. Consequently, in case any party
is able to show that there is a change in the circumstances or if
the Tribunal is satisfied that the interlocutory order has caused
undue hardship to any party, it is open to the Tribunal to
discharge, vary, or set aside the same on the application of any
party to the dispute.
In support of the above proposition, the parties have relied

upon three cases; one each of the Supreme Court, Madras and
the Madhya Pradesh High Courts.
In Arjun Singh Vs. Mahindra Kumar and Ors., AIR 1964 SC

993, in paragraph 13, Ayyangar, J. has opined as under:-
“It is needless to point out that interlocutory orders are of

various kinds; some like orders of stay, injunction or
receiver, are designed to preserve the status quo pending
the litigation and to ensure that the parties might not be
prejudiced by the normal delay which the proceedings before
the court usually take. They do not, in that sense decide in
any manner the merits of the controversy in issue in the Suit
and do not of course, put an end to it even in part. Such
orders are certainly capable of being altered or varied by
subsequent applications for the same relief, though normally
only on proof of new facts or new situations which
subsequently emerge. As they do not impinge upon the
legal rights of parties to the litigation the principle of res
judicata does not apply to the findings on which these orders
are based, though if applications were made for relief on the
same basis after the same has once been disposed of the
court would be justified in rejecting the same as an abuse of
the process of Court.”
96
In Govinda Ramanuja Das Goswami Vs. Vijiaramuruju and

another, AIR 1929 Madras, 803 it has been held on an
interpretation of Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code that it would be open
to a party against whom an injunction has been passed to seek its
setting aside where owing to fresh circumstances, it has become
unduly harsh or unnecessary or unworkable. In such
circumstances, the injunction order can be discharged, varied or
set aside. It has been further held that Order 39 Rule 4 of the
Code, does not give a Court jurisdiction to interfere with an
injunction already passed when each side had an opportunity of
being heard and no grounds other than those available at the
original hearing appeared or are urged. Where, therefore, a party
has by his own fault neglected to put his case forward at the
original hearing, he cannot come under Rule 4 later and plead that
he has a legal right under that Rule to have the case reopened
and reheard. Consequently, it has been held that Rule 4 is not
intended to set at naught the ordinary cursus curiae that, once a
Court has decided a matter after giving each side an opportunity
of being heard, its order is final and binding on itself as much as
on the parties, and cannot be reopened, except on the
presentation of some new matter not available when the original
order was passed.
Similarly, in Sitaram Madan Ahir Vs. Rajkunwar bai and

Ors., AIR 1959 M.P. 275 the Madhya Pradesh High Court has
accepted the principle laid down in the case of Govinda Ramanuja
Das (supra), decided by the Madras High Court, and it has been
held that the injunction order passed by a Court after hearing the
parties cannot be reopened except on presentation of some new
matter not available when the original order was passed.
In view of above, though technically the provisions of Order

39 Rule 4 of the Code are not applicable to a case of the Tribunal,
principles embodied in the said provision in a proper case may be
97
invoked. In this respect the nature of the interim order passed by

this Tribunal is not very different from an interim order passed by
any Civil court. We have, therefore, to examine as to whether the
State of Karnataka has been able to show that after passing of our
order dated 25th June, 1991, there has been change in the
circumstances or that undue hardship has been caused by our
order to the State of Karnataka and therefore, our above order
requires variation or modification.
In paragraph 4 of the CMP 15/91, Karnataka has averred

“the interim order of the Tribunal proceeds on the basis of
unknown availability of water to guarantee an annual release of
205 TMC of water at Mettur in Tamil Nadu”. According to the
State of Karnataka, having regard to the availability of yield of
waters each year, it will be impossible to make the stipulated
releases every month and week as directed. We need not set out
the rest of the paragraph 4. In paragraph 5 of CMP- 15/91, the
State of Karnataka has questioned the method of calculating the
average flows for the purpose of arriving at the figures of 205
TMC. According to the State of Karnataka, our order did not
provide for a situation when because of failure of rains sufficient
flows in the river may not be available for releases ordered for. In
paragraph 6 of CMP 15/91 another objection raised on behalf of
the State of Karnataka is that no restriction has been imposed
upon the utilisation of 28 TMC of water contributed from the
catchment areas in Tamil Nadu and upstream of Mettur Dam
beyond Karnataka’s borders. A complaint has been made also
about the alleged absence of technical data regarding the
availability of water needs of the States. The contentions raised in
paragraphs 14 and 15 of the CMP 15/91 are that the upper
riparian State of Karnataka would be prejudicially affected in
complying with the directions made by the Tribunal for ensuring
the releases of fixed quantity of waters, particularly in a bad year.
98
Besides, material allegations made as mentioned above,

we find that there is no averment or claim in the CMP 15/91 that
after passing of our order dated 25th June, 1991 there has been a
change in the material circumstances of the case which warrants a
modification of our said order.
Admittedly, in the year 1991-92, there was surfeit of rainfall

in the basin areas resulting in Karnataka releasing month to month
and also far in excess of the volume of water ordered by the
Tribunal. During the said year, the State of Tamil Nadu and Union
Territory of Pondicherry had also no occasion to complain about
the paucity in the supply of water. Thus, the State of Karnataka
has failed to make out any case for modification of our order dated
25th June, 1991 on the ground that there has been change in the
circumstances after passing our said order.
As already indicated above, we have to next consider as to

whether the order dated 25th June, 1991 requires variation or
modification on the ground of undue hardship to the State of
Karnataka. This question has to be considered in the light of the
various submissions made by the learned counsel for the State of
Karnataka.
One of the submissions made by the learned counsel for

the State of Karnataka is that from the Order dated 25th June,
1991, it has to be inferred that the Tribunal had accepted the claim
of Karnataka State that 312 TMC of water would be required for
the irrigation of 11.2 lakh acres of land in Karnataka State and,
consequently, if the State of Karnataka has to maintain annual
release of 205 TMC of water at Mettur the total flow of river
Cauvery upto Mettur has to be in the region of 517 TMC.
According to the State of Karnataka, since the total flow of water in
the river Cauvery is less than 517 TMC, in case the State of
Karnataka is required to fulfil its obligations to ensure 205 TMC
99
flow at Mettur Dam its effect would be that the aggregate flow
available for irrigation within Karnataka would fall short of 312
TMC, consequently some of the lands which are now being
irrigated in Karnataka by the water of the river Cauvery would
have to remain fallow every year. This argument is based on the
supposition that the Tribunal had passed the order dated 25th
June, 1991 by accepting the case of Karnataka in regard to the
'existing utilisation' of water. If 'existing utilisation' has to be
maintained then the State of Karnataka should at least have 312
TMC of water.
It is misconceived to urge that by order dated 25th June,

1991, the Tribunal had accepted the Karnataka's figure of 312
TMC as its requirement for irrigating 11.2 lakh acres. In Annexure
K-V to the Supplementary Statement of Objections dated 22nd
May, 1991, the Tribunal had referred only to the figure of 11.2 lakh
acres given in Column 13, but it did not thereby accept the claim
of Karnataka that 312 TMC of water would be required for
irrigating 11.2 lakh acres, mentioned in column 12. This 11.2 lakh
acres was mentioned in the order because it was Karnataka's own
case about its area irrigated by the Cauvery waters. We may also
point out that before us, Tamil Nadu had claimed 312 TMC of
water at Mettur for irrigation within the said State. The use of
'existing utilisation' was referrable only to the irrigated area and
not to volume of water which Karnataka or Tamil Nadu claimed
that they required for irrigation. At this stage, we did not
determine the merits of the claims laid either by Karnataka or by
Tamil Nadu about the volume of water needed by each of the two
States.
As stated above, we had not accepted the figures given by
Karnataka that 312 TMC of water would really be required for
irrigating 11.2 lac acres of land mentioned in column 13 of Table
K-V. It is not correct to say that we did not have in our mind the
100
aggregate annual flow of water of the river Cauvery while fixing

205 TMC as the annual minimum inflow upto the Mettur Dam.
The contention in this behalf made on behalf of the State of
Karnataka is devoid of merit. Since this point has now been
raised by the learned counsel for the Karnataka it may be stated
that in paragraph 12 of CMP 15/91, the State of Karnataka itself
has given the annual gross yield at Mettur during the period of
1980-81 to 1989-90, as follows:-
------------------------------------------------------------------
Years Gross Yield at Mettur in TMC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1980-81 623
1981-82 668
1982-83 404
1983-84 533
1984-85 599
1985-86 429
1986-87 487
1987-88 405
1988-89 484
1989-90 491
After excluding the two exceptionally good and two exceptionally

bad years the average gross yield would come to about 500 TMC.
In course of hearing we had invited the attention of learned
counsel for the State of Karnataka to the figures of releases
recorded at Biligundlu at the Karnataka-Tamil Nadu border where
Central Water Commission of Central Government maintains a
gauging site. As already indicated the statement of said flows
recorded by the CWC Gauging Site at Biligundlu were supplied by
the State of Karnataka on 18th January, 1992, which are as
follows:-
101
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Annual Flow Rounded to TMC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1980-81 442950 443
1981-82 417083 417
1982-83 214313 214
1983-84 254672 255
1984-85 320494 320
1985-86 175725 176
1986-87 194595 195
1987-88 107418 107
1988-89 191342 191
1989-90 186751 187
For the period 1980-81 to 1989-90, after excluding two

exceptionally good and two exceptionally bad years the annual
average flow at Biligundlu would come to 227 TMC.
As mentioned above at Biligundlu 227 TMC would be the
average annual flow, according to the recordings made at that
place by CWC Gauging Site. To this figure, if we add another 25
TMC as a contribution from the catchment areas in Tamil Nadu
above Mettur Reservoir, the aggregate would come to 252 TMC.
If we subtract 252 TMC from the yield of 500 TMC as per the
statement of Karnataka, the balance would be 248 TMC.
Therefore, according to the figures supplied by the State of
Karnataka itself the average annual appropriation by the State of
Karnataka would be approximately in the range of 248, and not
312 TMC as claimed in table K-V. In fact we have made further
allowances by reducing from 252 to 205 TMC tentatively as the
shares of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry without finally determining
the rights of the parties.
Prima facie at least 248 TMC would be available for use in
Karnataka. After reserving 18 TMC for water supply, out of 248
TMC, the overall delta for the 11.2 lakh acres would be about 4.72
feet.
102
Serious objection has also been taken by the learned

counsel for the Karnataka in this connection to our order directing
the State of Karnataka not to increase its area under irrigation by
the waters of the river Cauvery beyond existing 11.2 lac acres as
mentioned in Annexure K-V, Column 13. After maintaining flow of
205 TMC at Mettur Dam, Karnataka would be able to appropriate
the residual water of the river. It was, therefore, thought proper at
the interim stage in public interest to restrict the area irrigated by
Cauvery waters in Karnataka to avoid future possible difficulties
which might arise by fixation in the allocation of waters in the final
award.
In view of the above we do not find that any undue hardship
would be caused to the State of Karnataka by the order dated 25th
June, 1991 for ensuring the flow of 205 TMC water at Mettur.
Another submission made by the State of Karnataka is that
in order to estimate the river flow up to Mettur Dam it was
erroneous on our part to make an average of ten years after
excluding two exceptionally good and two exceptionally bad years.
This argument also is devoid of merit. The method adopted by the
Tribunal at this interim stage is consistent with the stand taken by
Karnataka itself. In their supplementary Rejoinder filed on
October 21, 1991, to the Counter Statement of the State of Tamil
Nadu in the main matter, Karnataka asserted in paragraph 4.2.2
that the justice can be done if average flows are considered for
equitable allocation. Again in paragraph 4.3.3 Karnataka State
averred that dependability cannot be a rigid factor. It depends
upon each individual case, mainly depending upon the availability
and the needs. Cauvery being a water critical basin, only the
average flows have to be considered for allocation of waters
among the States. In paragraph 4.3.9, the State of Karnataka
reiterated the same contention by claiming that for allocation,
average flows will have to be considered and it was for the States
103
to plan their projects to whatever dependability they want

depending upon their local conditions.
The Cauvery is an inter-State river. Therefore,
undisputedly its waters have to be shared amongst the riparian
States and the Union Territory including Karnataka, Tamil Nadu
and Pondicherry. At this interim stage, it is not possible to apply
the various tests for making equitable distribution in order to
determine the shares of the parties to this reference. In fact,
without giving up their claim for appropriate allocation at the final
hearing, the State of Kerala has not yet staked its claim for
apportionment of water at the interim stage. As already indicated
in our order dated 25th June, 1991, our primary consideration was
to preserve the rights of the parties and to prevent any one of the
parties from stealing a march over the others by taking such
measures which might nullify the effect of the final award. By
passing the interim order on the basis of averages, therefore, it
cannot be said that any undue hardship has been caused to the
State of Karnataka.
We may also point out that the figure of 205 TMC which the
State of Karnataka has been directed to maintain as annual flow to
the Mettur Dam, prima facie was not disproportionate to the
volume of water, which according to Karnataka even before
passing of our order dated 25.6.1991, it was flowing down to
Mettur Dam. In this connection, we may refer to the reply dated
4.1.1991 of the State of Karnataka to the Memorandum by the
State of Tamil Nadu in CMP No.4/90 in paragraph 20. The State
of Karnataka averred: "Having consistently received waters in the
range of 200 TMC annually from Karnataka borders in addition to
the contribution from its own catchment, it is not open to Tamil
Nadu to accuse Karnataka of adhering to 'the Harmon doctrine' of
appropriating all the waters within its territories………." Again in
para 19(g) of the Supplementary Statement of Objections dated
104
22.5.91 to the CMP No.4/90, Karnataka has stated that the figures
of flows confirmed that in normal and natural course substantial
volume of water flowed to Mettur. Tamil Nadu has consistently
received waters in the range of 200 TMC annually from Karnataka
borders in addition to the considerable contribution from the
substantial independent catchment below Mettur in Tamil Nadu.
Similar averments have been made by the State of Karnataka in
paragraph 47 (second sub-paragraph) and paragraph 58, which
read as follows:-
Para 47 (second sub-paragraph) :
"It is uncharitable for Tamil Nadu to say that whatever releases
have been made by Karnataka was only a pittance…………of the
397 TMC that the Tamil Nadu got 200 TMC was received by
Tamil Nadu at the Karnataka State border…………"
Para 58
"…………It is submitted that the corresponding annual inflow as
gauged by the Central Water Commission at Biligundlu gauge
site upstream of Mettur Reservoir on the common State border is
199.5 TMC, say 200 TMC and inflows to Mettur should,
therefore, be even more than 200 TMC…………"
In view of the stand taken by Karnataka itself, the counsel
for the State of Karnataka cannot plausibly object to making
average of the annual flows of the waters of river Cauvery up to
Mettur Dam for the purpose of passing interim orders.
It may be noted that while granting interim relief in favour of
the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry, we
directed for maintaining the total flow of 205 TMC at Mettur
including the contribution, which we have taken to be 25 TMC
from the catchment areas below Biligundlu and above Mettur
Dam, within Tamil Nadu. The State of Tamil Nadu claimed that
only 1 TMC out of this flow from upstream of Mettur was being
utilised. When there was no allegation that Tamil Nadu was
105
trying to divert any larger volume of water, it was not necessary

at this stage to impose a ban on Tamil Nadu, from diverting any
further water within its catchment areas, above Mettur Dam.
For the foregoing reasons the burden of Karnataka, by way
of an interim measure to maintain the annual flow has been
limited to 205 TMC which was inclusive of 25 TMC, contributed
from the catchment areas of Tamil Nadu, below Biligundlu and
upstream of Mettur Dam. This figure of 205 TMC is thus less
than the average flows between the years 1980-81 to1989-90,
recorded at Biligundlu by CWC Gauging Site. In this view of the
matter also no undue hardship is likely to be caused to the State
of Karnataka by the order dated 25.6.1991.
On behalf of the State of Karnataka, exception has also
been taken to our adopting two different sets of blocks of years
for fixing as interim measure the annual flows into Mettur and for
determining the monthly releases to be made to maintain the
annual contribution to Mettur.
In their CMP 15/91, the State of Karnataka itself has taken
the stand that the water must be available during the period in
which it is required for growing the crops. If the water is available
at a later stage it would be of no use. The Tribunal could give
appropriate directions to ensure this. We may also point out that
it is common knowledge that in various other river basins of India
provisions have been made for seasonal/periodical releases and
discharges from dams and barrages. There could be also no
question of any mismatch as claimed by the learned counsel for
the Karnataka in adopting two different set of years for fixing the
monthly and annual flows. We had done this because in the
years we had selected for fixing the monthly releases, there had
been no intervention by way of construction of new storages and
impounding of water within Karnataka during that period. It
would not have been appropriate to fix the monthly flows
106
according to the regulation of release of waters imposed by the

State of Karnataka after construction of new dams in the
tributaries of the Cauvery within the said State. The order for
regulated releases was made in public interest so that whatever
water is available, it ought to be put to the optimum use.
Therefore, on this score, also it cannot be urged that the order is
undue hardship to the State of Karnataka.
Learned counsel for the State of Karnataka has laid great
stress on the following part of our order dated 25th June, 1991:-
"The above order will remain operative till the final
adjudication of the dispute, referred to the Tribunal."
His argument is that in view of this order the interim order passed
by us would remain unalterable even if there is change in the
circumstances. In our opinion this argument is not sustainable.
Merely, because, we have observed that our order dated 25.6.91
will remain operative till the final adjudication of the reference
does not mean that even in case of change of circumstances, or
if hereinafter undue hardship result, aggrieved party cannot
approach the Tribunal for modification or alteration of the said
order dated 25th June, 1991. We have already mentioned that
learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, himself has not
disputed the legal proposition that the order dated 25.6.91 being
an interim award, in case of change of circumstances or undue
hardship, the Tribunal would not lack jurisdiction to make orders
for the ends of justice.
We also find no substance in the contention raised on
behalf of the State of Karnataka that the roster for releases have
been made on the basis of anticipated water availability before
the commencement of the water year. It is an established
practice for operating storage reservoirs all over the country to
prepare in advance the monthly working tables before the
commencement of the water year. We have also given directions
107
in our order dated 25.6.1991 for taking care of such shortfalls in

releases by carrying forward the same.
Our order dated 25th June, 1991 cannot be faulted also on
the ground that the said order makes no provision for taking
notice of any possible shortfall or deficit in the flow of the river. In
this connection, our attention has been drawn to the procedure
prescribed by some of the other Inter-State Water Disputes
Tribunals, in order to take care of such situations. While dealing
with the reference under Section 5(3) of the Act in the further
Report, Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, had mentioned at page
54 that, if in any water year, water available for utilisation in the
Tungabhadra Dam was less than the total quantity of water
required for all the Projects as mentioned, the deficiency shall be
shared by all the Projects proportionately. The proportions shall
be worked out after excluding the evaporation losses. Similarly,
contingency which might arise by reasons of deficit in water
supply was considered in the Report under Section 5(3) of the
Act by Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal. The Central
Government and the three concerned States, having made
reference u/s 5(3) of the Act to the said Tribunal for further report
for giving explanations and guidance, in accordance with the
majority opinion the Tribunal gave their modified decision under
Section 5(3) read with Section 5(4) of the Act, which was
published on 12th December, 1979. In clause (III) of their final
order and decision the Tribunal made apportionment of the
utilisable quantum of the Narmada waters and also the share of
the States concerned. In Clause IV (2) of the final order
directions were given on available utilisable water falling short,
the shortage should be shared between the States in the ratio
mentioned in the said order.
If in future a situation of distress is caused by diminution in
the supply of the water for meeting the releases ordered, the
108
similar method of pro rata sharing of the distress can always be

adopted.
For the foregoing reasons, no interference is called for at
this stage with our order dated 25th June, 1991. We may,
however, make it clear that in case hereinafter there is any
change of circumstance or undue hardship is caused, in a
particular year to any party, it will be open to such party to
approach the Tribunal for appropriate orders.
CMP 15/1991 is, accordingly, disposed of with the above
observations."
---------
109
Chapter 7
Framing of Issues
After the parties to the dispute had filed their respective Statement
of Cases and their respective Counters and Rejoinders to the each
other's Statement of Case, the Tribunal framed 'issues' in its hearing held
on 7trh January, 1992.
(1) Are both the Agreements of 1892 and 1924 or either of
them, invalid?
(2) Are both the Agreements of 1892 and 1924 or either of
them invalid because of the alleged oppression or because the
same were between the "unequal riparian States" as claimed by
the State of Karnataka?
(3) Are both the Agreements of 1892 and 1924 binding and
enforceable upon all the parties to the present reference
(dispute)?
(4) Are both the Agreements of 1892 and 1924, in so far as the
river Cauvery and its tributaries are concerned invalid, on the
ground that the then Chief Commissioner's Province of Coorg,
Podukottai State, Travancore State and the French settlement of
Pondicherry and Karaikal, were not parties to the said
Agreement?
(5) Whether the circumstances, that, the Agreements of 1892
and 1924 were not executed also on behalf of the then Chief
110
Commissioner's Province of Coorg, Podukottai State, Travancore
State and the French settlement of Pondicherry and Karaikal,
made the said Agreements not binding and unenforceable
against parties to the present reference.
(6) Is the State of Karnataka estopped from challenging both
the Agreements of 1892 and 1924 or either of them, on the
ground that it had said to have been acted upon?
(7) Is the State of Karnataka entitled to contend that in any
view of the matter the State of Tamil Nadu had waived the rights
claimed by it under the Agreements of 1892 and 1924?
(8) Has there been any breach of both the Agreements of 1892
and 1924 or either of them, by any of the States. If so, what is
the effect of any such breach upon the rights of the parties to the
present reference?
(9) Did both the Agreements of 1892 and 1924 or either of
them provide for a fair and equitable distribution of waters of the
river Cauvery and its tributaries to the parties of these
Agreements?
(10). (i) Could there be prescriptive rights as claimed by the State

of Tamil Nadu/Union Territory of Pondicherry, in their
pleadings.
(ii) If the answer to (i) is in affirmative, what was the nature
of such prescriptive rights, and
(iii) Whether the Agreements of 1892 and 1924 or either of
them, were in recognition of the prescriptive rights as
claimed by the State of Tamil Nadu?
111
(11) Have both the Agreements of 1892 and 1924 or either of
them ceased to be operative and enforceable and binding
because of subsequent events including enactment of various
laws and happening of changed circumstances?
(12) What would be the true and proper construction of both the
Agreements of 1892 and 1924, and their legal consequences?
(13) Were the Rules of Regulation in Annexure I to the
Agreement of 1924 arbitrary, unconscionable and excessive to
the requirements of the areas which then formed part of the
Province of Madras?
(14) Whether the Rules and Regulation in Annexure I to the
Agreement of 1924, are arbitrary and inequitable on the ground
that the same were excessive to the requirements of the areas
which now form the part of the State of Tamil Nadu?
(15) Does the entire Agreement of 1924 stand terminated at the
expiry of 50 years from the date of its execution? Does not the
said agreement continue to subsist even after the expiry of the
period of 50 years, subject to the modifications to be made to it in
accordance with clause 10(xi) of the same Agreement? What is
the true scope and effect of clause 10(xi) of the Agreement?
(16) If the answer to the first part of issue 15 is in the affirmative,
whether the 1892 Agreement ought to continue in force until a
new Agreement is entered into or the respective rights of the
basin States are determined in accordance with law?

112
(17) What is the present relevance and also the effect of the
deliberations of the Cauvery Fact Finding Committee, and of the
Study Team conducted by Shri CC Patel, Additional Secretary to
the Government of India, and also of reports, measures and
surveys conducted by other agencies?
(18) Upon a true and proper assessment made according to the
reliable and scientific method, what would be the approximate
available surface waters of the Cauvery basin including the delta
region?
(19) Whether the Agreement of 1892 was operative and
enforceable also in respect of those tributaries of the river
Cauvery which were not specifically mentioned in the Schedule
'A' to the said Agreement?
(20) What is the extent of additional/alternative means of water
resources available in the Cauvery basin by appropriate
exploitation of ground water potentials and by trans-basin
diversion?
(21) What is the approximate volume of ground water in each
one of the States/Union Territory which are parties to the
Reference and whether the said availability of ground water, if
any, should be relevant in making fair and equitable distribution
of the Cauvery river waters?
(22) What should be the basis on which the availability of waters
be determined for apportionment, namely, dependability or on

113
percentage basis? If it is on percentage basis, what ought to be
the said percentage?
(23) Whether there is wastage of waters in appreciable volume or
quantity, either in the basin or in the delta areas of the Cauvery
river? If so, what is its effect, if any, on the fair and equitable
distribution of waters of the river Cauvery?
(24) Whether directions need be issued to the parties for
ensuring that the cropping patterns are compatible with the
rainfall and the river flows and other relevant factors and whether
such directions, if any, would be feasible and germane for
making equitable and fair distribution of the waters of the river
Cauvery?
(25) What is the extent of the return flow of water used in
irrigation by the different parties and what would be its effect on
the apportionment of Cauvery waters among them?
(26) What is the extent of drought prone/affected areas in the
Cauvery basin region in each of the party States, and what is its
effect, if any, in making equitable apportionment of waters?
(27) Should trans-basin diversion of the water of rivers Kabini
and Bhavani be permitted for generation of power and for
irrigation and water supply by the State of Kerala? If so, to what
extent and subject to what conditions and with what safeguards?
(28) Whether generation of power by trans-basin diversion of
water by the parties would be legal and justified, particularly, if a

114
part of such power would be utilised by the people of the river
basin itself?
(29) Are the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu resorting to
trans-basin diversion of the waters of river Cauvery? If so,
whether those States can be permitted to object to the proposed
trans-basin diversion of the water by the State of Kerala?
(30) Should any preference or priority be given to utilization of
water in a manner such that it can generate power as well as
meet the needs of irrigation and water supply within the
basin/outside the basin area?
(31) What is the extent of the contribution by the different States
to the total flow in the Cauvery river and what would be its
relevance for equitable apportionment of waters to the party
States?
(32) Whether directions are required to be issued to ensure that
the waters of the Cauvery and its tributaries maybe developed by
each of the States, singly or jointly, to generate maximum hydro-
electric power without detriment to irrigation uses?
(33) Is the State of Karnataka entitled to compensation for the
loss suffered as averred in paragraphs 18.9 to 18.11 of the
Statement of Case of Karnataka and as per averments in
paragraphs 34 to 41 of the Counter of Karnataka to the
Statement of Case of Tamil Nadu?

115
(34) Whether any order/direction should be issued upon any one
or more of the States for regulated release of the Cauvery waters
and whether in that event compensation is to be awarded in
favour of the parties, prejudicially affected thereby?
(35) To what extent should Kerala be permitted to utilise the
waters generated in Kerala when such utilisation in Kerala would
secure either more or equal benefit for the country and its people
than by its utilisation in any of the other States?
(36) Whether the State of Kerala requires a part of Cauvery water
for generation of power, and, if so, to what extent?
(37) Whether shortage of food in any of the States would be a
relevant factor to be taken into consideration in making the
apportionment of the Cauvery water?
(38) Whether the backwardness, under-developed and allegedly
neglected area of a particular State would be relevant matters in
making a fair and equitable distribution of the water of the
Cauvery river?
(39) Whether the construction works executed by the State of
Tamil Nadu in the Upper Bhavani, Vargarpallam West and
Vargarpallam East, have unreasonably deprived the rights of the
State of Kerala in the natural flow of the waters of the river
Cauvery and, if so, to what effect?
(40) Whether the executive action taken by Karnataka in
constructing Kabini, Hemavathi, Harangi, Suvarnavathy and

116
other projects and expanding its ayacuts has prejudicially
affected the interests of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, materially
diminished the supply of waters to Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry
and materially affected the prescriptive rights claimed by Tamil
Nadu and Pondicherry on behalf of their ayacutdars?
(41) Whether the above said executive action taken by Karnataka
is in violation of 1892 and 1924 Agreements?
(42) Whether the State of Tamil Nadu is entitled to compensation
for the loss, damage and injury caused by the failure on the part
of Karnataka to implement the terms of 1924 Agreement after
1974?
(43) If the answer to the above issue No.42 is in the affirmative,
what is the amount of compensation to which Tamil Nadu is
entitled?
(44) What is the equitable share of the Union Territory of
Pondicherry in the waters of the inter-State river Cauvery?
(45) Is the understanding reached between the then Governor of
French Settlement in India Pondicherry and the then Governor of
Madras on 6thSeptember, 1926 to maintain adequate supply of
water to the French Territory still subsisting and as such
enforceable against the State of Tamil Nadu?
(46) Whether the projects executed by the States of Karnataka
and Tamil Nadu have unreasonably impaired the free flow of

117
water of the river Cauvery into the Union Territory of
Pondicherry?
(47) On what basis should the available waters be determined?
(48) How and on what basis should the equitable apportionment
be made?
(49) What directions, if any, should be given for the equitable
apportionment and for the beneficial use of the waters of the river
Cauvery and its tributaries?
(50) What directions, if any, are required to be given regarding
the sharing of distress and surplus among the concerned parties
to the reference in the event of the waters of the Cauvery falling
short of the allocated quantum or being surplus to the same?
2. It may be mentioned that after the conclusion of the recording of
evidence, counsel appearing for States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala
and Union Territory of Pondicherry were heard on further regrouping of
the issues for the purpose of arguments. On 14.12.2001 the following
order was passed by the Tribunal:
“Heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the party States and

the Union Territory of Pondicherry. It is agreed that the issues
framed by this Tribunal earlier should be re-grouped subject
wise. For the present, it is also agreed that the following three
issues, for the major heads, should be heard first. As to whether
the other issues should be re-grouped or not, shall be considered
at a later stage:-
118
Sl.No. Subject Issue No.

1. Agreements of 1892 and 1924
a)Constitutional and legal 1 to 7,11 & 19
validity and enforceability
b) Arbitrary and inequitable 9, 13 & 14

c) Prescriptive rights and other claims 10 & 40
d) Construction and review
of agreements 12, 15 & 16
e) Breach of agreements and
Consequences 8, 33, 40 to 43
2. Availability of water –
surface flows, additional/ 18, 20 to 22, 25,
alternative resources 27, 29, 31 & 47
3. Equitable apportionment and 26, 31, 34,37,

related subjects: 38, 47 to 50
i) Cropping pattern
ii) Trans-basin diversion
iii) Relevant date of apportionment
iv) Relevance of projects completed
or otherwise.”
3. A further re-grouping was done on the basis of the Order passed
on 22-3-2002. The relevant part of the Order is as follows:
“By our order dated 14th December, 2001, we had re-grouped the
Issues. Issues framed against Sl.No.1 in respect of agreements
of 1892 and 1924 were as follows:-
Sl.No. Subject Issue No.

1. Agreements of 1892 and 1924:
a) Constitutional and legal 1 to 7,11 & 19
validity and enforceability
b) Arbitrary and inequitable 9, 13 & 14
c) Prescriptive rights and other claims 10 & 40

119
d) Construction and review

of agreements 12, 15 & 16
e) Breach of agreements and

Consequences 8,33, 40 to 43
4. It appears to us as well to the Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the party States & Union Territory of Pondicherry that it will be
more convenient to put Issue No.1(a) “Constitutional and legal validity
and enforceability” as last of the first Group. Accordingly they are re-
grouped as follows:
Subject Issue No.

Agreements of 1892 and 1924:
a) Arbitrary and inequitable - 9, 13 & 24
b) Prescriptive rights and
other claims - 10 & 40
c) Construction and review
of agreements - 12, 15 & 16
d) Breach of agreements and
consequences - 8, 33, 40 to 43
e) Constitutional and legal
Validity and enforceability - 1 to 7, 11 & 19
5. Sl. Nos. 2 & 3 shall remain as it was re-grouped on 14th
December, 2001. They are as follows:-
2. Availability of water-surface flows, 18, 20 to 22, 25

Additional/alternative resources 27, 29, 31 & 47
3. Equitable apportionment and 26, 31, 34,

related subjects 37, 38, 47 to 50
i) Cropping pattern
ii) Trans-basin diversion
iii) Relevant date of apportionment
iv) Relevance of projects completed or otherwise.”
120
6. Later further orders dated 22.12.2002, 7.5.2003, 7.1.2003,
6.7.2004 and 11.5.2005 were passed in respect of regrouping of some
of issues which are not very material.
--------
121
Chapter 8
The Cauvery River Water (Implementation of

the Order of 1991 and all Subsequent Related
Orders of the Tribunal) Scheme 1998
On 11th August 1998 a Notification No.S.O.675(E) was issued by
the Central Government to give effect to the interim order of the Tribunal
dated June 25, 1991 and its related orders:-

TH
"NOTIFICATION DATED 11 AUGUST, 1998
S.O.675(E) - Whereas the Central Government, in exercise of
the powers conferred by section 4 of the Inter-State Water
Disputes Act, 1956 (33 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the
said Act) had constituted, by the notification of the Government of
India in the Ministry of Water Resources No. SO 437(E) dated
the 2nd June, 1990, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) to adjudicate upon the
water dispute regarding the inter-State river Cauvery;
And whereas the Tribunal has given an Order on the 25th

June, 1991 in Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.4, 5 and 9 of 1990
(hereinafter referred to as “the interim Order”) and forwarded the
same to the Central Government for necessary action;
And whereas, the interim order of the Tribunal was published

in the Gazette of India by the Central Government as required by
Section 6 of the said Act vide notification of the Government of
India in the Ministry of Water Resources, No. SO 840(E) dated
the 10th December, 1991, whereupon the said Order became
binding on the parties to the dispute;
And, whereas the Central Government has decided to frame

a Scheme for giving effect to the interim Order of the Tribunal
dated 25th June 1991 and all its related subsequent orders.
122
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

Section(1) of Section 6A of the said Act, the Central Government
hereby frames the following Scheme to give effect to the
implementation of the said Orders of the Tribunal, namely:
1. (1) This Scheme may be called “the Cauvery Water
(Implementation of the Order of 1991 and all subsequent
related orders of the Tribunal) Scheme, 1998.
(2) It shall come into force on the date of its publication
in the Official Gazette.
2. CONSTITUTION OF THE CAUVERY RIVER AUTHORITY
(1) There shall be an Authority under this scheme to be

known as the Cauvery River Authority (hereinafter referred
to as the Authority).
(2) The Authority shall consist of the following:-
(a) Prime Minister of India Chairperson
(b) Chief Minister of Karnataka Member
(c) Chief Minister of Kerala Member
(d) Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Member
(e) Chief Minister of Pondicherry Member
(3) The Secretary in-charge of the Ministry of the
Central Government dealing with water resources shall be
the Secretary of the Authority.
3. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY:-

(1) The role of the Authority shall be to give effect to the
implementation of the interim order dated 25th June 1991 of
the Tribunal and all its related subsequent orders.
(2) The Authority shall frame rules and regulations for
the conduct of its business.
(3) The Authority may convene meetings as and when
necessary.
123
4. MONITORING COMMITTEE:
Under the Authority, there shall be a Monitoring Committee

with the following composition:
(a) Secretary-in-charge of the Ministry of Central Chairman
Government dealing with water resources
(b) The Chief Secretaries to the Governments of Members
Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and the
Union Territory of Pondicherry
(c) Chairman, Central Water Commission Member
(d) One officer each, not below the rank of a Chief Members
Engineer, to represent the State of Karnataka,
Kerala and Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory
of Pondicherry to be nominated by the
respective State Governments or the Union
Territory administration.
(e) Chief Engineer, Member Secretary
Central Water Commission
5. ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE:
(1) The role of the Monitoring Committee will be to render

assistance to the Authority to enable it to take decisions on
issues under consideration.
(2) The Monitoring Committee shall assist the Authority in

collecting information and data.

monitoring the implementation of the decisions of the Authority.
In case, any difficulty arises in implementation, the Monitoring
Committee shall report the position to the Authority.
124

setting up a well designed hydro meteorological network in
Cauvery basin along with a modern communication system for
transmission of data and a computer based control room for data
processing to determine the hydrological conditions.
6. MEETING OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
The Monitoring Committee shall meet at least once in

three months but it may meet as often as necessary.
7. HEADQUARTERS OF THE AUTHORITY:
The Headquarters of the Authority shall be at New Delhi.
8. FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
(1) All the capital and revenue expenditure required to be

incurred by the Authority shall be borne by the Central
Government initially till the issue of sharing of cost among the
party States or the Union territory is either decided by them
through mutual discussions or till the Tribunal takes a decision on
the above matter.
(2) The accounts of the Authority shall be maintained and
audited in such manner as may be provided in rules made by the
Central Government, in consultation with the Comptroller and
Auditor General of India, in this behalf.
By Order and in the name of the President of India."
2. Thereafter rules and regulations for the Conduct of Business of
Cauvery River Authority have been framed, which are as follows:
THE CAUVERY RIVER AUTHORITY (CONDUCT OF BUSINESS) RULES,

1998
I. SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT:

i) These Rules may be called "the Cauvery River Authority
(Conduct of Business) Rules, 1998".
125
ii) The Rules have come into force on 14th July, 2000, i.e. the
date of their adoption by the Cauvery River Authority.
II. OBJECTIVES:
To regulate the Conduct of Business of the Cauvery River

Authority as provided in clause 3(2) of the Cauvery Water
(Implementation of the Order of 1991 and all subsequent related
orders of the Tribunal) Scheme, 1998.
III. DEFINITIONS:
The terms Authority, Chairperson, Member and Secretary
used in these rules shall have the same meaning as in the
Scheme.
IV. MEETING OF THE CAUVERY RIVER AUTHORITY:

The meeting of the Cauvery River Authority shall be
convened, as and when necessary, by the Secretary of the
Authority with the approval of Chairperson.
V. PRESIDING OVER MEETING OF THE CAUVERY RIVER

AUTHORITY:
Every meeting of the Cauvery River Authority shall be

presided over by the Chairperson of the Authority.
VI. QUORUM:
The quorum for the meeting shall be three Members in
addition to the Chairperson.
VII. AGENDA:
i) The Secretary shall send agenda for the meeting to the
Members at least seven days in advance. In case of an
emergent situation, this period may be relaxed by the
Chairperson.
126
ii) Any item not included in the agenda may be transacted with
the permission of the Chairperson.
VIII. MINUTES:
i) The minutes of every meeting of the Authority shall be

recorded and issued after approval of the Chairperson.
ii) The Members may give their comments on the minutes of
the meeting within thirty days of the receipt of the minutes and
the same may be discussed in the next meeting.
iii) In the event of an important decision which needs immediate
implementation, the decision shall be recorded in the meeting
itself.
IX. DECISION:
Decision shall ordinarily be by consensus. In case no

consensus is reached, the decision may be left to the
Chairperson.”
-----

Award of Cauvery River Water Disputes Tribunal - Volume 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Award of Cauvery River Water Disputes Tribunal - Volume 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Award of Cauvery River Water Disputes Tribunal - Volume 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE REPORT

THE CAUVERY WATER DISPUTES

WITH THE DECISION

IN THE MATTER OF WATER DISPUTES REGARDING THE INTER-STATE

1. The State of Tamil Nadu

BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE

COMPOSITION OF THE CAUVERY WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

Shri Sudhir Narain

The following were also in the composition of the Cauvery Water

Shri Chittatosh Mookerjee

BEFORE THE CAUVERY WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

(Whole-time – From January, 1991 – Till Date)

(Whole-time – From September, 1994 – Till Date)

The following were also Assessors for the period indicated:-

I. For the State of Tamil Nadu.

Other Representatives/Technical Personnel

1. Thiru R. Tirumalai, Advisor to Government

II. For the State of Karnataka

Other Representatives/Technical Personnel

IV. For the Union Territory of Pondicherry

Other Representatives/Technical Personnel

UNITS & CONVERSION TABLE

1 hectare = 2.47 acres (100 metres x 100

1 cub. metre (cum) = 35.32 cu.ft (cft)

1 cub. meter/second (cumecs) a day = 35.31 cusecs a day

Background of Dispute and framing of Issues

Chapter Subject Page Nos.

1. Dispute regarding sharing of the waters of 1 - 26

2. Background of the Cauvery Water Dispute 27 - 49

3. The claim of the Riparian States 50 - 61

4. Petitions for interim directions 62 - 72

5. The Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation 73 -86

6. Order of the Tribunal dated 3.4.1992 on the 87 - 108

7. Framing of Issues 109 -120

8 The Cauvery River Water (Implementation of the 121 - 126

Dispute regarding sharing of the waters of inter-State

The Central Government in exercise of its power conferred by

section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (33 of 1956)

constituted `Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’ by a notification dated 2nd

‘MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES

And whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by section

(ii) Shri Justice S.D. Agarwala - Member

(iii) Shri Justice N.S. Rao - Member

By order and in the name of the President of India

2. The Government of India by its notification No.21/1/90-WD dated

"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (i) of

Section 5, of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (Act 33 of

1956), the Central Government hereby refers to the Cauvery

Water Disputes Tribunal for adjudication, the water disputes

regarding the Inter-State river Cauvery, and the river valley

thereof, emerging from letter No.17527/K.2/82-110 dated the 6th

July, 1986 from the Government of Tamil Nadu (copy enclosed)."

The letter No.17527/K.2/82-110 dated 6th July, 1986 from

Ref:-1. This Government's Letter No.79558/ D /69 dated

2.This Government letter No.79558/D/69/36 dated 17,02,70

3.This Government letter No.53724/1.Spl./75-06 dated

(i) which executive action has resulted in materially