Archive · 22 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Rejects Fresh Plea Over Cauvery Water Allocation
Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are arguing about how much Cauvery River water each state should receive.
Another group asked the Supreme Court to move 70 TMC of water from Tamil Nadu’s share to Karnataka.
The court refused to hear that new request.
The judges said the two states are already handling the dispute before the court.
Karnataka said it had released more water than required by August 31.
It also said it was following an order to send 9,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu for 15 days.
Tamil Nadu said it was still missing water that it was supposed to receive.
The court had earlier asked Karnataka to follow the water authority’s direction.
The Supreme Court declined to hear a fresh plea seeking changes to Cauvery water allocation.
The petition sought reallocation of 70 TMC from Tamil Nadu’s share to Karnataka.
The court said Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are already contesting the inter-state dispute.
Karnataka said it had released excess water and was complying with a 9,000-cusecs directive.
Tamil Nadu said it was not receiving its due share during a rain-deficient year.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, the Cauvery Water Management Authority, and the petitioner society.
- What
- The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking reallocation of 70 TMC of Cauvery water to Karnataka from Tamil Nadu’s share.
- When
- The decision was given on Tuesday; related directions and filings occurred on August 3, August 17, August 25, and August 31.
- Where
- The dispute concerns the Cauvery River and the states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka; the hearing was before the Supreme Court.
- Why
- The court said the two states are already contesting the dispute and that accepting petitions from societies could lead to endless additional petitions.
Tamil Nadu’s Position
Karnataka’s Position
Adequacy of water releases
Tamil Nadu’s Position
Tamil Nadu said the water released by Karnataka and the quantum allocated by the committee were insufficient, leaving it without its due share during a rain-deficient year.
Karnataka’s Position
Karnataka said it had released excess water as of August 31 and was complying with the direction to maintain a flow of 9,000 cusecs.
Outstanding water
Tamil Nadu’s Position
Tamil Nadu said it had informed the authority about a backlog of water but that no direction was issued on the matter.
Karnataka’s Position
Karnataka’s stated compliance focused on the existing 9,000-cusecs direction, rather than the additional backlog claimed by Tamil Nadu.
- Requested reallocation
- 70 TMC of Cauvery water from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka
- Water-flow direction
- Karnataka was directed to ensure a flow of 9,000 cusecs to Tamil Nadu for 15 days
- Issuing authority
- Cauvery Water Management Authority
- Authority decision
- On August 25, it upheld the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee’s recommendation
- Karnataka’s position
- The state said it had released excess water as of August 31 and was complying with the direction
- Tamil Nadu’s position
- The state said it was not receiving its due share in a rain-deficient year and had reported a water backlog
- Court’s reason
- Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are already contesting the inter-state dispute