Cauvery water sharing dispute: Apex court Verdict reasonable, feel legal eagles

Former advocate general Uday Holla said the verdict was quite balanced but the quantity of water should have been 30 tmcft instead of 14.75 tmcft.

Published: 17th February 2018 04:03 AM  |   Last Updated: 17th February 2018 04:03 AM   |  A+A-

By Express News Service

BENGALURU: The Supreme Court’s Friday verdict on Cauvery water sharing dispute is quite balanced and reasonable. The only setback to the state is that the apex court upheld the 1892 and 1924 post-Mettur dam agreements on the Cauvery water allocation between the erstwhile princely state of Mysore - now part of Karnataka - and the Madras presidency, which included Kerala, say legal experts.

As per the verdict, Karnataka will now have to release 177.25 tmcft, instead of 192 tmcft, from its Biligundlu site to Mettur dam in Tamil Nadu. However, while this is marginally in Karnataka’s favour, by upholding the 1892 and 1924 post-Mettur dam agreements on Cauvery water allocation, the apex court has considered lesser volumes of water demanded by the then Mysore state as compared to Karnataka, whose water requirements today have significantly increased, they point out.

Former advocate general Uday Holla said the verdict was quite balanced but the quantity of water should have been 30 tmcft instead of 14.75 tmcft. Then it should have been more comfortable for the state, he said. The only setback was that the 1924 agreement was upheld by the apex court. “Now, we have to satisfy and accept it, there’s no choice,” Holla said.  Senior counsel Ashok Harnahalli, who is also a former advocate general, said the judgment is quite reasonable.

“Although our requirement is much more than the 14.75 tmcft that was allocated by the apex court, the state’s interests have been protected in Friday’s verdict,” he said.  Harnahalli opined that the 1924 agreement should not have been upheld by the apex court as it was entered into between two states during the British era. Karnataka should have challenged this agreement immediately after reorganisation of states. But it has not been done and therefore now, the agreement is binding on the state, he said, adding that the quantity of water allocated to Bengaluru should have been more than 14.75 tmcft.

Senior counsel B V Acharya said the Supreme Court has given some relief to the state government and rejected many aspects of the state’s arguments. “The water allocated for Bengaluru is not sufficient, but we will have to be content with it. The apex court should not have taken the 1924 agreement into consideration in the interest of the state,” he said.

India Matters


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp