Supreme Court Declines to Stall Mekedatu Project DPR; Reaffirms Expert Bodies’ Primacy in Cauvery Water Management
Case Name: State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others (Multiple Misc. Applications, Contempt Petition & WP (C) 914/2023 in CA 2453/2007)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1343
Date of Judgment/Order: 13 November 2025
Bench: B.R. Gavai, CJI; K. Vinod Chandran, J.; Vipul M. Pancholi, J.
Held: The Supreme Court held that Tamil Nadu’s application seeking to stay the Central Water Commission’s (CWC) permission for Karnataka to prepare the Mekedatu Detailed Project Report (DPR) is premature and misconceived. The Court clarified that the DPR is only an initial step and cannot affect Tamil Nadu’s entitlement under the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal Award as modified in 2018. The Court reaffirmed that expert bodies such as the CWMA and CWRC are responsible for scrutinising hydrological, technical and allocation-related issues and that judicial interference at this stage is unwarranted. The Court further held that every State is entitled to utilise its allocated share in the manner it deems fit, provided such utilisation does not reduce the water apportioned to any other State.
Summary: Following the 2018 Cauvery judgment, Karnataka sought to proceed with the Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir cum Drinking Water Project after receiving conditional permission from CWC on 22 November 2018 to prepare the DPR. Tamil Nadu challenged this permission, arguing that the proposed dam would alter the “uncontrolled flow” guaranteed under the CWDT Award and adversely impact its share. Karnataka contended that the DPR neither diverts water nor affects Tamil Nadu’s allocation and that any utilisation would remain within its allotted share. The Court traced earlier proceedings — including the 2023 monsoon-related applications — where water-release disputes were repeatedly examined by the CWRC and CWMA, whose decisions were upheld by the Court as expert determinations. Reviewing the letter dated 22 November 2018 (page 6), the Court noted that the CWC had expressly required Karnataka to consider Tamil Nadu’s objections and obtain CWMA’s prior approval before any final decision. The Court also noted that expert recommendations, technical directorate observations and inter-agency consultations had been emphasised in the Screening Committee’s meeting (page 5).
Decision: The Supreme Court rejected Tamil Nadu’s Miscellaneous Application, holding that the DPR-stage challenge is premature and that the matter must first be evaluated by CWC, CWMA and CWRC as mandated under the 2018 Scheme. It reiterated that Karnataka remains bound to release water in accordance with CWMA directions, monitored at Biligundulu, failing which it risks contempt. The Court also disposed of Tamil Nadu’s application regarding return flows and BWSSB operations, directing the State to raise such grievances before CWC/CWMA, which must decide expeditiously. All connected Miscellaneous Applications, the Contempt Petition and the PIL (WP (C) 914/2023) were disposed of in terms of this judgment.