The Cauvery water dispute intensified after Karnataka told the Supreme Court that releasing 11 TMC of water to Tamil Nadu would be difficult because deficient rainfall had created drought conditions and left the state facing shortages for its own needs. The court heard arguments from both states and reserved its order without setting a date for the decision.
Tamil Nadu had approached the Supreme Court seeking the immediate release of the shortfall in water due to it during the current water year. The state said the Cauvery is a critical source for the delta districts and argued that the deficit should be addressed in addition to current allocations ordered by the Cauvery Water Management Authority.
Under the Supreme Court’s Cauvery water-sharing judgment, Karnataka is required to release 177.25 TMC of water to Tamil Nadu annually. Tamil Nadu’s government told the court that 11 TMC remained outstanding in the current allocation and sought directions for its release.
The plea was heard by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Aprosh Kumar Singh. During the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath questioned Tamil Nadu’s recurring claims of water shortage while noting that Karnataka had submitted data indicating that it had released more water than required under earlier orders. The judge said Karnataka’s data required an explanation.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that the Cauvery authority issues directions based only on current data and does not issue orders addressing water deficits accumulated earlier. He urged the court to direct that water be apportioned proportionately during shortage periods based on the water available in reservoirs, and that past deficits also be included in the calculation.
Karnataka’s senior advocate Shyam Divan opposed Tamil Nadu’s request. He told the bench that inadequate rainfall had caused drought conditions in several parts of Karnataka and that the state was retaining water to ensure that drinking-water supply to residential areas was not disrupted. On that basis, he said meeting Tamil Nadu’s demand would be difficult.
The arguments place the immediate dispute within the operational challenge of managing a river basin during a deficit year. Tamil Nadu’s case focuses on the unpaid portion of an established allocation and the need to account for accumulated shortfalls. Karnataka’s position centres on present reservoir availability, drought conditions and the priority of protecting drinking-water supply within the state.
The court recorded the submissions from both sides and reserved its judgment. The next formal development will be the Supreme Court’s order on Tamil Nadu’s request for the release of the 11 TMC shortfall and its plea for a mechanism to account for deficit water during periods of scarcity.
