New Delhi, November 15: India’s Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed as “premature” a petition by Tamil Nadu challenging Karnataka’s proposed Mekedatu reservoir across the Cauvery river, saying the project’s Detailed Project Report (DPR) was still under expert consideration and had not yet received mandatory clearances.
A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai said the DPR, submitted by Karnataka, was currently being examined by the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC). The Central Water Commission (CWC) has previously stated it would only accept the DPR after both bodies grant approval.
The court said Tamil Nadu would be free to pursue legal remedies if the DPR were eventually cleared, but noted that Karnataka was bound to comply with its obligation to release Cauvery water to downstream Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry under existing allocations.
The hearing followed an application in which Tamil Nadu sought to restrain the CWMA from deliberating on the 67.16 TMC-ft Mekedatu balancing reservoir and its proposed 400 MW power component, a project estimated to cost about 90 billion rupees ($1.08 billion). The state argued that planning for the project violated the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in 2007, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, said the reservoir would impede natural flows from multiple sub-basins—including Kabini, KRS-downstream stretches, Shimsha, Arkavathy and Suvarnavathy—that ensure 177.25 TMC of water at the interstate measuring point at Billigundlu.
Karnataka’s counsel Shyam Divan countered that the project would not affect Tamil Nadu’s allocated share and described the concerns as “completely misconceived.”
Tamil Nadu told the court that CWMA should not consider the project while its related applications were still pending before the Supreme Court, including pleas seeking directions to the CWC to reject the DPR and to bar the Environment Ministry from processing any clearance requests.
The court declined to intervene at this stage but said affected parties could act in accordance with the law if the DPR moved forward.
