The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief Secretary vs. State Of Tamil Nadu State Of Tamilnadu By Its Chief Secretary

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1343

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL/ORIGINAL/INHERENT JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 3127 OF 2018
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2453 OF 2007

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY ….PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS

WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2210 OF 2018
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2453 OF 2007

WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2022
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2453 OF 2007

WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1869 OF 2023
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2453 OF 2007

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 914 OF 2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2025.11.22
11:58:56 IST
Reason:

Page 1 of 18



WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1020 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2453 OF 2007


J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 3127 OF 2018 IN CA
NO. 2453 OF 2007:

1. The present application has been filed by the State of Tamil
Nadu with the following prayers:
“(i) Stay the operation of the permission given
by the Central Water Commission on
22.11.2018 to Karnataka Cauvery Neeravari
Nigam Ltd., Bangalore, an instrumentality of
State of Karnataka to go ahead with preparation
of Detailed Project Report for Mekedatu
Balancing Reservoir cum Drinking Water
project;
(ii) Direct the Central Water Commission,
Ministry of Water Resources, to withdraw the
letter dated 22.11.2018 issued to the Managing
Director, Cauvery Neervari Nigam Ltd.,
Bangalore, granting permission for preparation
of the Detailed Project Report with regard to the
proposed Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir cum
Drinking Water project;
(iii) Restrain the State of Karnataka and its
instrumentalities namely Cauvery Neervari
Nigam Ltd., from proceeding further with the
Page 2 of 18



preparation of the Detailed Project Report with
regard to the proposed Mekedatu Balancing
Reservoir cum Drinking Water project,
pursuant to the permission given by Central
Water Commission on 22.11.2018;
(iv) Direct State of Karnataka and its
instrumentalities to maintain status quo till the
disposal of the present application; and
(v) Pass such further Order or any other Orders
that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
appropriate in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The water sharing dispute between the State of Tamil Nadu
and the State of Karnataka came to be finally decided by this
th
Court on 16 February 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007
and other connected matters, titled as “The State of
Karnataka by its Chief Secretary vs. State of Tamil Nadu
1
by its Chief Secretary and Others .”
3. This Court vide the said judgment and order has concluded
various issues with regard to sharing of water between various
States including the States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu & Kerala
and the Union Territory of Puducherry. It appears that in order
to carry out the decree of this Court, the Union of India provided
for the Cauvery Water Management Scheme consisting of

1
(2018) 4 SCC 1
Page 3 of 18



Cauvery Water Management Authority (hereinafter, “CWMA”)
and Cauvery Water Regulatory Committee (hereinafter, “CWRC”)
st
vide a notification dated 1 June 2018.
4. In pursuance to the said judgment and order of this Court,
it appears that the State of Karnataka is proposing to construct
a dam on the Cauvery River at Mekedatu under the project titled
as “Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir Cum Drinking Water Project”.
5. On receipt of the request from the Government of
Karnataka with regard to the aforesaid project, the Central
Water Commission (hereinafter, “CWC”) sought a report from the
CWMA. It further appears that the said project was placed for
consideration before the Screening Committee. The Screening
Committee, after considering various factors prima facie was of
the opinion that on satisfaction of certain conditions imposed in
th
its report, which was prepared in the meeting held on 24
October 2018, the said project could go ahead.
6. It will be relevant to refer to the experts, who were present
th
in the meeting of Screening Committee dated 24 October 2018:

Page 4 of 18

7. It appears that after the Screening Committee, in principle,
found that the State of Karnataka can go ahead with the said
project, the State of Tamil Nadu made a representation to the
Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga
st
Rejuvenation, on 31 October 2018, recording its objection to
the recommendations of the Screening Committee.

8. After considering the report of the Screening Committee,
nd
the CWC vide letter dated 22 November 2018, permitted the
State of Karnataka to prepare a Detailed Project Report
(hereinafter, “DPR”). It will be relevant to note that in the
nd
communication dated 22 November 2018, the CWC specifically
directed the State of Karnataka to take into consideration
Page 5 of 18



various objections raised by the State of Tamil Nadu while
preparing the DPR. It was further directed that since the State
of Karnataka has proposed to execute the said project for
implementation of the Award of Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal (hereinafter, “CWDT”), as modified by this Court, the
acceptance of the DPR by the CWMA would be a pre-requisite for
consideration of the DPR. It was further directed that the DPR
would be prepared in due consultation with the Central
Electricity Authority (hereinafter, “CEA”) and the concerned
units of CWC. It is further to be noted that vide the said
communication, the CWC forwarded the comments of the
specialized directorates of CWC and CEA, which were to be duly
complied with while preparing the DPR.
9. In this factual background, the applicant has approached
this Court.
10. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu and Shri Shyam Divan,
learned Senior Counsel along with Shri Shashi Kiran Shetty,
learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Karnataka.
We have also heard Shri Aravindh Selvaraj, learned counsel
appearing for the Union Territory of Puducherry.
Page 6 of 18



11. Shri Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the State of Tamil Nadu, submits that by constructing a dam,
the State of Karnataka is, in fact , doing something which will
amount to the modification of the Award passed by the CWDT,
as modified by this Court. It is submitted that by the Award,
which is finally merged into the judgment and order of this
Court, the State of Tamil Nadu is entitled to “uncontrolled flow of
water” . It is submitted that in the Cauvery basin, the State of
Karnataka has already constructed Krishnarajasagar Dam and
various other dams. It is further submitted that if the proposed
dam is constructed, the right of the State of Tamil Nadu for the
uncontrolled flow of water would be adversely affected.
He, therefore, submitted that the State of Karnataka does not
have a right to construct a dam at Mekedatu.
12. Shri Rohatgi further submitted that the State of Karnataka
is in the habit of utilizing much more water than the amount to
which it is entitled to as per the Award of CWDT, as modified by
this Court. He further submitted that in the last fifty years the
State of Tamil Nadu was required to approach this Court as well
as the Union of India, on several occasions, so as to prevent the
State of Karnataka from over utilizing the water.
Page 7 of 18



13. Shri Divan, the learned Senior Counsel and Shri Shetty,
the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State
of Karnataka, on the contrary , submit that what the State of
Karnataka is intending to do is only utilization of the water
allotted to it, as per the Award of the CWDT, as modified by this
Court. It is further submitted that the State of Karnataka is
completely within its right to utilize the water allotted in its share
in the best possible manner . It is, therefore, submitted that even
after the Mekedatu Dam is constructed, the uncontrolled flow of
water towards the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory
of Puducherry would not be affected.
14. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
material placed on record.
15. At this stage, what is being done by the State of Karnataka
nd
in view of letter/order dated 22 November 2018 passed by the
CWC is only permitting the preparation of a DPR, and that too,
after taking into consideration the objections of the State of
Tamil Nadu and the remarks of concerned directorate of CWC
and CEA. It is also to be noted that the CWC has further directed
that the prior approval of the CWMA as well as the CWRC would
be a pre-requisite for consideration of the said DPR.
Page 8 of 18



16. In that view of the matter, we find that the present
application has been filed at a premature stage as the final
decision by the CWC, with respect to the Mekedatu Dam, would
be taken only after consideration of the DPR as well as the
opinions of CWMA and CWRC.
17. In any case, it is to be noted that on an earlier occasion
also, the dispute between these two States, in the Monsoon of
2023, had come up before this Court in a Miscellaneous
Application bearing No. 3127 of 2018. The said matter was
considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court, to which, one
of us (B.R. Gavai, J, as he then was) was a party.
th
18. A perusal of the order dated 25 August 2023, passed in
the aforesaid Miscellaneous Application, would reveal that it was
the contention of the State of Tamil Nadu therein that as per the
orders passed by the CWRC and CWMA, the water which was to
be supplied to the State of Tamil Nadu, was not being supplied
by the State of Karnataka.
19. On the contrary , it was submitted by the State of Karnataka
in the said Miscellaneous Application, that more water than
what was ordered by the CWMA had already been discharged.
It was further submitted that it takes three days’ time for the
Page 9 of 18



water to travel from State of Karnataka to the border of both the
States at the measuring point at Biligundulu.

20. It was also the contention of the State of Tamil Nadu
therein that the orders passed by the CWMA were prejudicial to
their interest. Per contra , it was the contention of the State of
Karnataka therein that in fact the orders passed by CWMA were
favourable to the State of Tamil Nadu and prejudicial to their
interest.
21. It can also be seen that this Court had clearly observed in
th
the order dated 25 August 2023 passed in the said
Miscellaneous Application that “ we do not possess expertise in
”. The Court had also recorded the statement of
the said matter
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing in the said matter for Union of India, that the meeting
th
of CWRC was scheduled on 28 October 2023 for considering
the issue regarding the discharge of water for the next fortnight.
She had submitted that, thereafter, the matter would go before
CWMA. This Court had, therefore, directed the CWMA to submit
a report as to whether the directions issued by it, for discharge
of water, have been complied with or not.
22. The said Miscellaneous Application, thereafter, came up
Page 10 of 18



st
before this Court on 21 September 2023. A grievance was
raised by Shri Rohatgi, who was also appearing at that stage for
the State of Tamil Nadu, that even after taking into consideration
the drought condition, the State of Tamil Nadu was entitled to
receive water to the tune of 7,200 cusec per day, but the same
was abruptly reduced by CWRC to 5,000 cusec per day as could
be seen at Biligundulu, which is the measuring point. It was
submitted that even the CWMA had mechanically approved the
decision of the CWRC.

23. As has been done today, the State of Karnataka on that day
also seriously disputed this and submitted that the CWRC and
CWMA had, , erred in directing release of 5,000 cusec per
in fact
day, whereas, as a matter of fact, it should not have directed
release of more than 3,000 cusec of water per day.
24. After recording the submissions of the parties, this Court
st
vide order dated 21 September 2023 in the said Miscellaneous
Application, observed that after taking all the relevant factors
into consideration, the CWRC had passed an order, which was
affirmed by the CWMA and which had directed the State of
Karnataka to release water from Krishnarajasagar and Kabini
put together, so as to release 5000 cusec per day of water at
Page 11 of 18



Biligundulu. This Court had further directed the authorities to
regularly meet at the interval of 15 days to assess the situation
for the relevant period and direct the release of water. This Court
further observed that since both the CWRC and the CWMA are
the bodies of experts, which have been constituted to ensure
proper implementation of the Award passed by the CWDT, as
modified by this Court, the factors that were taken into
consideration by them cannot be said to be irrelevant or
extraneous.

25. In that view of the matter, we reiterate what was observed
th
by this Court vide order dated 25 August 2023 that we do not
possess expertise in this field. This Court time and again has
observed that the courts should refrain from entering into the
areas which can be best looked after by the experts in that field.
It would, therefore, be appropriate that even for the present
matter the issues are dealt with by the experts.
26. A perusal of the material placed on record would reveal that
the directions of the CWC are based upon the suggestions and
recommendations of the experts’ body. Not only that but the DPR
to be prepared by the State of Karnataka would be considered
by the CWC only if the CWMA approves of the same, inasmuch
Page 12 of 18



nd
as, the letter dated 22 November 2018 states that the prior
approval of the CWMA would be a prerequisite for consideration
of the DPR.
27. In that view of the matter, we find that the present
application, when the expert body is in seisin of the matter, is
totally misconceived.
28. In any case, we find that the State of Karnataka would be
bound to release the water, as directed by the CWMA, which will
be measured by the CWC at the measuring point of Biligundulu.
If the State of Karnataka fails in complying with the directions
issued by this Court, then it faces the risk of committing the
Contempt of this Court.
29. It cannot be disputed that every State is free to utilise water
allotted to its quota in the manner it finds to be in the best
interest of the State. No other State has a right to interfere with
the decision regarding the management and use of water allotted
to a particular State unless by such act the water allotted to that
State is reduced. As already discussed hereinabove, the CWMA
and CWRC are the body of experts which will have to ensure that
the water allotted to the State of Tamil Nadu reaches as per the
Award of the CWDT, as modified by this Court, at the measuring
Page 13 of 18



point at Biligundulu.
30. Needless to state that in the event the DPR is approved by
the CWC, the parties would be at liberty to take such steps as
are permissible in law.
31. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain
this application and the same is rejected.
32. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1869 OF 2023 IN CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 2453 OF 2007:

1. This application has been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu
with the following prayers:
“1. Direct Karnataka and its instrumentalities,
namely, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage
Board (BWSSB), to comply with the decision of
the Tribunal as affirmed by this Hon'ble Court
and ensure that 80% of the flows drawn from
Cauvery river and its tributaries to meet the
drinking water supply of Bangalore city as
regenerated flows from domestic use is returned
after treating the said water, to the Cauvery
River system;
2. Direct the State of Karnataka and its
instrumentalities, namely, Bangalore Water
Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB), not to
transfer the non-consumptive use of the water,
drawn from Cauvery Basin/Cauvery River
including its tributaries for drinking water
supply to Bangalore City, to the adjoining
Pennaiyar river basin.
Page 14 of 18



3. Direct the State of Karnataka and its
instrumentalities, namely, Bangalore Water
Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB), to treat
the non-consumptive use of the water, drawn
from Cauvery basin/Cauvery River including its
tributaries for drinking water supply to
Bangalore City, to the specified standards
before letting into the Cauvery River.
4. Direct the CWMA to monitor the quantum of
water drawn for meeting the drinking water
supply requirements of Bangalore Metropolitan
City from Cauvery River/ Cauvery basin as a
source, and
5. Direct the CWMA also to monitor the quality
and quantity of non-consumptive use of
drinking water drawn for Bangalore Water
Supply returned to Cauvery basin; and
6. Pass such other and further orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is the grievance of the applicant/State of Tamil Nadu
that the State of Karnataka is not complying with the Award
passed by the CWDT as affirmed by this Court vide judgment
th
and order dated 16 February 2018 in State of Karnataka
(supra) . A direction is, therefore, sought by the State of Tamil
Nadu to the State of Karnataka not to transfer the non-
consumptive use of the water drawn from Cauvery
basin/Cauvery River including its tributaries.
3. The CWC is an apex body with regard to the disputes
between states in respect of sharing of water. Insofar as the
Page 15 of 18



water in the Cauvery Basin is concerned, the dispute between
the States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka & Kerala and the Union
Territory of Puducherry has been finally decided by this Court in
the judgment passed in State of Karnataka (supra) . For
implementation of the Award passed by CWDT, as modified by
this Court, the Union of India has provided for the Cauvery
Water Management Scheme consisting of CWMA and CWRC vide
st
notification dated 1 June 2018. If the applicant/State has any
grievance with regard to the non-implementation or improper
implementation of the aforementioned judgment and order
passed by this Court, the State is always at liberty to approach
the CWC, CWMA or CWRC.
4. We clarify that, in the event, the CWC and CWMA are
approached by the applicant/State, the said authorities would
take a decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as
possible.
5. The present application is disposed of in the above terms.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.



Page 16 of 18




MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2022 IN CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 2453 OF 2007 & MISCELLANEOUS
APPLICATION NO. 1020 OF 2024 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2453
OF 2007:
These applications stand disposed of in view of the
judgment and order of even date passed by this Court in
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 3127 of 2018 & 1869 of 2023 in
Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007.
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2210 OF 2018 IN CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 2453 OF 2007:
This Contempt Petition stands disposed of in view of the
judgment and order of even date passed by this Court in
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 3127 of 2018 & 1869 of 2023 in
Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 914 OF 2023:
1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed for proper
implementation of the judgment of this Court passed in State
of Karnataka (supra) .
2. As has already been observed by us in the judgement and
order of even date passed by this Court in Miscellaneous
Application Nos. 3127 of 2018 & 1869 of 2023 in Civil Appeal
Page 17 of 18



No. 2453 of 2007 that the Cauvery Water Management Authority
(CWMA) and Cauvery Water Regulatory Committee (CWRC) are
bodies constituted by the Union of India for proper
implementation of the aforesaid judgment and order, no orders
are necessary in this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly,
disposed of.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………….CJI
(B.R. GAVAI)



………………………………….J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)



………………………………….J.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 13, 2025.


Page 18 of 18