Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, urging the Centre not to grant any statutory or administrative approval to Karnataka's proposed Mekedatu balancing reservoir project unless it is found to be fully consistent with the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) Award and the Supreme Court's February 16, 2018 judgment on the Cauvery water dispute.
Objection to Rajya Sabha Reply
In his letter, Vijay also sought the withdrawal of a recent reply given by the Minister of State for Jal Shakti in the Rajya Sabha, describing it as "disappointing" and legally untenable.
The minister's response, made to an unstarred question, stated that the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment does not expressly require Karnataka to obtain the consent of lower riparian states before constructing a structure across the Cauvery River.
Rejecting that interpretation, Vijay argued that the reply overlooked the prevailing legal position and established judicial principles governing interstate river disputes.
He maintained that any project capable of affecting the regulated flow of Cauvery waters must first be examined for compliance with the tribunal award and the Supreme Court's directions.
Legal Grounds Cited
Alamatti Project Precedent
To support his stand, the Chief Minister referred to the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment in the State of Karnataka vs State of Andhra Pradesh case concerning the Alamatti project.
He noted that the apex court had held that Karnataka could not undertake such construction without the consent of the lower riparian state, making such approval an essential legal requirement.
Clause XVIII of the CWDT Award
Vijay further pointed to Clause XVIII of the CWDT Award, which the Supreme Court expressly affirmed in its 2018 verdict.
According to him, the clause permits each basin state to regulate waters within its territory only in a manner consistent with the tribunal's directions, making compliance with the award mandatory for any new project.
Kerala's Pambar Hydroelectric Project Reference
The Chief Minister also cited the tribunal's observations on Kerala's Pambar hydroelectric project, where even a proposal involving only 0.1 TMC of consumptive use required Kerala and Tamil Nadu to jointly determine the schedule of water releases to safeguard downstream irrigation.
He argued that this demonstrated the tribunal's emphasis not only on annual water allocations but also on coordinated regulation of river flows to protect lower riparian interests.
Clauses XI and XX of the Tribunal Award
Referring to Clause XI of the tribunal award, Vijay said an upper riparian state cannot take any action that affects scheduled water deliveries to downstream states except through mutual agreement and consultation with the designated regulatory authority.
He also highlighted Clause XX, which states that any modification to the tribunal award can only be made through the agreement of all party states.
Compliance as a Prerequisite
Vijay asserted that the Mekedatu project cannot be treated merely as an engineering proposal and that its legal validity must first be assessed in the context of the CWDT Award, the Supreme Court judgment, and the rights of downstream states.
He also recalled that the Central Water Commission (CWC) had returned Karnataka's Detailed Project Report (DPR) in 2019 for revision to ensure compliance with the tribunal award and applicable guidelines, arguing that this itself establishes compliance as an indispensable prerequisite.
Demands Made to the Centre
The Chief Minister requested the Centre to withdraw the Rajya Sabha reply and ensure that no approval is granted to the Mekedatu project unless it is demonstrably consistent with the tribunal award and the Supreme Court verdict.
He also urged the Union government to protect the rights of lower riparian states about both the quantity of water allocated and the regulated pattern of water releases.
Calling for a comprehensive technical and legal examination before any future consideration of the project, Vijay said the concerns of all lower riparian states must be taken into account.
Describing the Cauvery River as "the lifeline of millions of farmers and citizens across southern India," he stressed that safeguarding the integrity of the tribunal award and the Supreme Court judgment was essential for preserving faith in the constitutional framework governing interstate river water disputes.
Concluding his letter, Vijay sought Prime Minister Modi's personal intervention, stating that protecting the rights of downstream states was necessary in the larger interest of justice, cooperative federalism, and the faithful implementation of judicial decisions.
