New Delhi, Nov 13 (UNI) The Supreme Court today refused to entertain two applications filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging Karnataka’s plan to construct the Mekedatu dam across the Cauvery river.
The court held that the petitions were “premature” as the proposed project is still at the Detailed Project Report (DPR) stage, which requires multiple layers of expert scrutiny and approval.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria noted that the Central Water Commission (CWC) had only permitted the preparation of the DPR by its letter dated November 22, 2018, and that the project cannot proceed without the prior approval of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC).
“At this stage, what is being done by the order passed by the CWC is only the preparation of the DPR, that too after taking into consideration the objections of the State of Tamil Nadu, and the expert opinion of CWMA and CWRC,” the bench observed.
It added, “The direction of the CWC is based on the suggestions of expert bodies. The project would be considered by the CWC only if the CWMA approves of the same. In that view of the matter, we find that the present application, when the expert body is seisin of the matter, is premature.”
Referring to its earlier order dated August 25, 2023, the court reiterated that it must refrain from adjudicating on matters requiring technical expertise. “This court does not possess the expertise. We have time and again reiterated that this court should refrain from areas which are best reserved for experts,” it said.
However, the bench warned that Karnataka remains bound by its obligation to release water to Tamil Nadu in accordance with the court’s previous directions. “If Karnataka fails to comply with the directions of this court, it faces the risk of committing contempt of court,” the order stated.
The court clarified that Tamil Nadu would be free to take legal action if the CWC eventually approves the DPR.
The applications, filed as Miscellaneous Applications in Tamil Nadu’s 2007 appeal against the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award (disposed of in 2018), had challenged both the CWC’s 2018 permission for DPR preparation and the execution of the Mekedatu project itself.
During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that the proposed Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir-cum-Drinking Water Project would harm Tamil Nadu’s farmers by reducing water flow downstream. He contended that the reservoir’s higher altitude, upstream of the Biligundlu measuring station, would adversely affect the water release to Tamil Nadu.
Opposing the plea, senior advocates Shyam Divan, Mohan Katarki, and advocate general Shashi Kiran Shetty for Karnataka argued that the application was misconceived, asserting that Karnataka is duty-bound to release 177.25 TMC of water to Tamil Nadu as per the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment.
They maintained that the ruling imposes no restriction on Karnataka constructing the Mekedatu project within its own territory, provided the mandated water release continues.
