Tamil Nadu will move the Supreme Court to secure its due share of Cauvery water, Law Minister CTR Nirmal Kumar said on Friday, rejecting Karnataka's stand on the long-running inter-state river dispute.
"Legally, we need to get the required water through the Supreme Court," Kumar told reporters, asserting that the state would pursue all legal options to safeguard farmers' interests.
He accused Karnataka of repeatedly failing to release water despite directions from the Cauvery regulator and alleged that the neighbouring state's politics has long been centred on denying Tamil Nadu its share.
"Karnataka's politics itself is being built upon the Cauvery issue. For 30, 40 years, 100 years, their entire political stance is contained in the position that they will not give water," the minister said.
Kumar said the Tamil Nadu government views the dispute as an issue affecting farmers' livelihoods rather than a political contest.
He said Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay is consulting legal experts, senior officials and other stakeholders before finalising the state's next course of action.
"The chief minister is expected to announce the state's comprehensive legal strategy and final decisions within a week," Kumar said.
According to the minister, the government is examining four options for a long-term solution: approaching the Supreme Court, seeking the constitution of a new water disputes tribunal, holding direct talks with Karnataka, or pressing the Centre to ensure compliance with existing orders.
Kumar also slammed Union Minister of State for Jal Shakti Raj Bhushan Choudhary over his recent remarks in Parliament on the proposed Mekedatu dam.
Responding to a parliamentary query, Choudhary said the Supreme Court's February 2018 judgment on the Cauvery dispute does not require Karnataka to obtain the consent of lower riparian states -- Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry -- before constructing projects such as the proposed Mekedatu dam.
He cited a provision of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT), reiterated by the apex court, which states that a riparian state may regulate and utilise water within its territory as long as it does not violate the tribunal's award.
Kumar, however, contended that the minister had misread the Supreme Court verdict, maintaining that no quantity of Cauvery water can be diverted without the consent of the lower riparian states.
