How can Karnataka clear the Cauvery backlog amid drought conditions, SC asks Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 12, 2026) questioned Tamil Nadu on how Karnataka could be expected to make good the backlog in the release of Cauvery water when the latter was itself grappling with water scarcity and drought conditions.“A backlog can be covered only when there is excess water. If there is less rainfall and there is scarcity, how do you expect them to fulfil the backlog? They are also reeling from water scarcity. If they have excess water and are not giving it to you, then only can you recover the backlog,” a Division Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath observed.The Bench reserved its order on an application filed by Tamil Nadu in the decades-old Cauvery water-sharing dispute. The State has contended that there is a shortfall of 11.719 thousand million cubic feet (tmcft) in the flows due to it at Billigundulu, the inter-State border measuring point, up to October 6.The State also accused Karnataka of withholding water despite having sufficient reserves, pointing to a combined reservoir storage of approximately 49 tmcft, which it maintained was adequate to meet its water-sharing obligations to the lower riparian State.Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that deficient rainfall could not mean that one State alone should bear the brunt of the resulting shortage. He submitted that in a distress year, the available water must be apportioned proportionately among the States, and that Tamil Nadu continued to face a deficit of 11.719 tmcft even after its entitlement was reduced to account for the prevailing conditions.“In a distress year, you cannot get the same [quantity] as in a normal year. So there has to be a proportionate reduction from the full flow to a distress flow. Even in the distress flow, the backlog is 11 tmcft,” Mr. Rohatgi submitted.‘Shortfall of 11 tmcft’The court was told that the continuing shortfall was severely affecting Samba cultivation and the livelihoods of farmers in the Cauvery Delta.“11 tmcft is my shortfall. A shortfall is not a shortfall of money that you can make up after one year or six months. I need water today for my crops…They should make up the shortfall,” Mr. Rohatgi said.Karnataka, represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan, however, sought to distinguish its position from that of Tamil Nadu. He submitted that while both States were grappling with water scarcity, Tamil Nadu had the advantage of the impending northeast monsoon, which was expected to replenish its reservoirs in the Cauvery basin.“They have one great advantage which we don’t have, and that is the northeast monsoon. It feeds their reservoirs, but it does not help us… There is hope for Tamil Nadu to get replenishment through this monsoon,” Mr. Divan submitted.He said Karnataka was itself facing an acute drought, with several districts notified as drought-affected. The prevailing conditions, he said, had forced the State to curtail irrigation releases and conserve its limited water reserves to safeguard drinking water requirements.“Several districts of ours have been notified in phases as drought-affected… The available water for Karnataka might be around 57 tmcft, out of which around 45 tmcft is required to meet the drinking water requirements of Bengaluru metropolitan city and other urban areas,” he said.Karnataka also submitted that it was complying with the direction of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) to ensure a daily average flow of 3,000 cusecs at Billigundulu for Tamil Nadu.‘Expert bodies applying their mind’Mr. Divan argued that judicial intervention was not warranted at this stage since the CWMA was “alive” to the prevailing conditions and was reviewing the water situation every 15 days. He submitted that the two expert bodies — the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) and the CWMA — were cognisant of the prevailing realities and were taking all relevant factors into account.“There is an evaluation every 15 days. There is a two-tier approach and a full application of mind to all relevant considerations… When you have an expert body applying its mind, perhaps there is no warrant for the court to come in,” he submitted.Justice Nath indicated that the Authority had already factored the shortfall into its assessment before directing a flow of 3,000 cusecs, taking into account the inflow of water as well as the distress conditions prevailing in both States.“The Authority has considered that there is a deficit of 11 tmcft. Nevertheless, considering the inflow and availability of water and the distress situation prevailing in both States, it has allowed 3,000 cusecs to be released… It is not as if the authority has not taken the deficit into consideration”, he said.The Bench said it would pass its order on Tamil Nadu’s application shortly.Earlier, Karnataka, in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, had argued that Tamil Nadu had been allocated the lion’s share of 404.25 tmcft on account of its historic irrigation claims, while Karnataka received only 284.75 tmcft out of the 483 tmcft available up to Billigundulu, without adequately accounting for its drought-prone areas.“In a distress water year, the first priority should be given to drinking water requirements, since people cannot live without drinking water. The second priority must be given to dry irrigation in the drought areas, since irrigation in these drought areas provides minimum income and sustenance to the farmers. Out of the present storage of 48.878 tmcft in Karnataka’s four reservoirs, the drinking water requirement is 35 tmcft. The remaining 13.878 tmcft is wholly insufficient to meet the dry irrigation in the command of four reservoirs in Karnataka,” the State’s response had said.