Cauvery Verdict: 177.25 TMC of water to be released for Tamil Nadu, decides SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court delivered its verdict on the decades-old Cauvery water dispute between riparian south Indian states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala on Friday.

The three judges of the Supreme Court delivering the verdict on the Cauvery water dispute said Karnataka is a global city with a dire need of water, and increased its water allocation by 14.25 TMC (Thousand Million Cubic Feet). Earlier, the state used to get 270 TMC, which has been increased to 284.25.

Consequently, the water allocation of Tamil Nadu has been reduced from 192 TMC to 177 TMC. The SC also directed Karnataka to release 177.25 tmcft of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu from its inter-state Biligundlu dam.

The SC allows Tami Nadu to draw additional 10 tmcft 'groundwater' from total of 20 tmcft beneath Cauvery basin. The court says the 2007 tribunal award of 30 tmcft to Kerala and 7 tmcft to Puducherry will remain unchanged.

Tamil Nadu will now get 404.25 tmcft of Cauvery water instead of 419 tmcft allotted by tribunal; Karnataka will get an enhanced 14.75 tmcft water which will be above the 2007 tribunal award of 270 tmcft.

The SC also says increase in Cauvery water share for Karnataka is on account of groundwater and drinking water requirement for Bengaluru residents.

The Cauvery water dispute has been a source of tension between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and has persisted despite attempts at a solution over 120 years.

The bench delivering the verdict was headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and also comprises Justices Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar.

During the hearings that ended last year, Tamil Nadu had asked the top court to make a "fundamental change" in the water sharing pact and set up a Cauvery Management Board.

Reactions to the verdict:

Originally awarded 192 TMC water to Tamil Nadu has been reduced with SC order. 14.75 TMC extra water has been given to Karnataka to provide drinking water to Bengaluru city. We hope that TN govt will take appropriate steps: A Navaneethakrishnan, lawyer for TN #CauveryVerdict pic.twitter.com/E1kKQ2TNEg

— ANI (@ANI) February 16, 2018

We believe in verdict of the court & respect it. Surely, this is not enough. We have raised the shortfall of water with Union Minister Nitin Gadkari who have two plans to address the issue, one of which is linking river Godavari with Kallanai: A Navaneethakrishnan #CauveryVerdict pic.twitter.com/tCwES1hfv2

— ANI (@ANI) February 16, 2018

#CauveryVerdict #Cauvery The pre-independence agreement is valid. Karnataka gets additional water keeping in mind the water shortage that Bengaluru is facing. A Cauvery Water Management board will be set up and they will have control over water allocation, and not the states,"

— Rajeev Chandrasekhar (@rajeev_mp) February 16, 2018

No verdict can leave both sides happy. Given that, it is time for both #TamilNadu and #Karnataka to put the #Cauvery (or #Kaveri, as we Tamils spell it) dispute behind them https://t.co/jOsGKVT6UG

— Saisuresh Sivaswamy (@SaisSivaswamy) February 16, 2018

[email protected] What are your views on the sharing of #Cauvery river waters, sir?

— R.K.Radhakrishnan (@RKRadhakrishn) February 16, 2018

We are very happy with the verdict. The verdict is a balance verdict which protects interest of both the states. This is a good judgement which will go long way in ensuring peace in both the states: Mohan V Katarki, counsel for the state of Karnataka #CauveryVerdict pic.twitter.com/7OflfK9bNW

— ANI (@ANI) February 16, 2018

SC verdict on cauvery fair and reasonable. No point in fueling emotions anymore. Allow the matter to rest and move on.

— Savukku_Shankar (@savukku) February 16, 2018

#CauveryVerdict has done part justice to people of Karnataka. We expected a little more, but this is satisfactory

— Priyank Kharge (@PriyankKharge) February 16, 2018

Disclaimer : Mytimesnow (MTN) lets you explore worldwide viral news just by analyzing social media trends. Tap read more at source for full news. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply any endorsement of the views expressed within them.