CODE OF CONDUCT

The Model Code of Conduct for guidance of political parties and candidates is a set of norms which has been evolved with the consensus of political parties who have consented to abide by the principles embodied in the said code and also binds them to respect and observe it in its letter and spirit.

The Election Commission ensures its observance by political party(ies) in power, including ruling parties at the Centre and in the States and contesting candidates in the discharge of its constitutional duties for conducting the free, fair and peaceful elections to the Parliament and the State Legislatures under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. It is also ensured that official machinery for the electoral purposes is not misused. Further, it is also ensured that electoral offences, malpractices and corrupt practices such as impersonation, bribing and inducement of voters, threat and intimidation to the voters are prevented by all means. In case of violation, appropriate measures are taken.

The Model Code of Conduct is enforced from the date of announcement of election schedule by the Election Commission and is operational till the process of elections are completed. It is intended to provide a level playing field for all political parties, to keep the campaign fair and healthy, avoid clashes and conflicts between parties, and ensure peace and order. Its main aim is to ensure that the ruling party, either at the Centre or in the states, does not misuse its official position to gain an unfair advantage in an election.

Advertisements

REGIONAL PARTIES

During last two decades, the rise of regional parties has influenced not only state politics; but also the national parties and national politics. With sizeable electoral support, the regional parties have not only managed to win elections and form state governments, they have also influenced the national politics.

The very fact that the Congress had to form alliances with regional political parties in states like Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra indicates that the Congress is no longer a dominant political force in these states.

The net result is that, in the absence of any single party having a majority in Lok Sabha, political parties have had no choice but to form a coalition government. All of India’s national governments since the 1996 Lok Sabha elections have been coalition governments with the regional parties playing a key role in formation of the government at the Centre. Indian politics has moved from an era of single-party rule with the absolute dominance of the Congress from 1952-1989 (with a brief exception 1977-80) to an era of coalition politics.

Regional parties have played an important role in Indian politics at both the state and national level for a little over a decade and will continue to in the coming years. The regional parties have made important inroads in the traditional support base of the Congress amongst Muslim, Dalits

1. The states classified in the category of two-party contests between Congress and BJP are Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, H.P, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Delhi, Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal. 6

2. The states classified under the category of a contest between Congress and regional parties are Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Punjab, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand and West Bengal. This classification is valid for all the elections.

Each ethnic community seems to have its own world-view and have always attempted to be independent from other ethnic communities, and hence urged for autonomy- within or outside the constitutional framework.  

The strong urge for autonomy and independent existence has led to the formation of regional political parties for the articulation of their aspirations by a specific ethnic community or group of communities. It is believed that since the national parties have failed to represent the particular needs and aspirations of the people of the region, regional political parties have been formed with ethnic considerations.

 political parties create democracy by enabling the masses to participate in political life. It is also suggested that democracy in ethnically-diverse societies is likely to be strengthened by the development of broad-based, aggregative and multi-ethnic political parties, rather than fragmented, personalised or ethnically-based party systems

india had about a single party political system till 1967, congress (INR) dominated it. Even states were ruled by congress. But regional parties came into picture after 1967. They gain some powers in their regions. But it was only 1980s when regional parties participated in centre’s coalition government also. Sometimes central government and state governments have different parties. That immensely affected the developmental plans. Similarly coalition governments have many a time proved to short-lived. This resulted in mid-term polls many a times. Congress lost its dominance as a result of this.

Many regional parties like TDP, RJD, Akali Dal, AIADMK, DMK, SP, BSP etc. started playing their influential role. They started participating in government decision making. Unlike earlier, now the regional parties made developmental works come to their states. Whenever, central government is making policies it has to consider, the regional parties, which are their allies. However, presence of regions parties in central government sometime creating instability.

In short we can say that regional parties have increased importance of their regional on the one hand, and have increased instability on the other. But somehow, Indian political system has become more democratic.

INDIAN CONSTITUTION VS AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

Indian Constitution

1. Indian federation is not the result of an agreement between States.

2. There is only one citizenship for both the States and Union.

3. Each State sends M.P.s to the Parliament depending upon the population of the State.

4. There is no principle of quality between the states.

5. There are three Lists- Union List-(First List); State List (Second List); and Concurrent List – (Third List). The Parliament can legislate only the subjects of the State List and Concurrent List. The States are not sovereign. The Union can encroach upon State’s Lists.

6. No State can separate from Indian Territory.

7. The Parliament, i.e. Center has been residuary powers.

8. There is only one Constitution for Union and States.

9. India achieved uniformity in basic civil and criminal laws, except personal laws in some matters.

10. The Indian Union is an indestructible Union of destructible States. The area, identity of a state can be changed by Parliament. The States can be destructible. But the Union can not be changed. The Union is indestructible.

11. The Central Government has been the power to form a new State, to increase the area of any State, to diminish the area of any State; to alter the boundaries of any State; to alter the name of any State; and to form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a partnership the of any State(Article 3)

12. The word “Federal” is not at all used in our Constitution. Simply the framers described “Union”.

13. The Supreme Court has been given very wide powers, including appellate (Civil and criminal) jurisdiction.

14. No referendum is necessary. For the amendment of the Constitution, the people need not give their consent. It is sufficient to get the majority of M.P.s and in certain cases, the majority of the State legislatures.

American Constitution

1. American Federation is the result of an agreement between States.

2. There are dual citizenships- one Federal Citizenship- another State Citizenship.

3. Each State sends equal number of representatives to the Senate.

4. There is principle of equality between the States, irrespective of its population, extent etc.

5. There is a clear division of legislative powers among Federal and Units. The Union and as well as each Unit is sovereign in its sphere. The Union is sovereign in their respective State legislative fields. Strictly one can not trench upon the other’s area of power. Each is confined to its own sphere.

6. The State, if wants, can separate itself with the Federal, being the relation is based only the ‘Agreement ’.

7. The States have residuary powers.

8. There are two Constitutions-

9. There are different civil and criminal laws, differing from State to State.

10. Union is based only the agreement. Any State can separate at any time. When the States are separated, there will be no Union at all. Hence, it is called that the American Union is an indestructible Union of indestructible States.

11. The American Federal Government has been no such power.

12. The word “Federal” is used in the Constitution very often, and still now it is used very frequently.

13. The Supreme Court of American has not been given such type of appellate jurisdiction.

14. For the amendment of Federal Constitution, a referendum must be conducted. Amendment to the Constitution can be made only with the consent of the people.

cauvery water dispute

The peninsular rivers are depended on the annual monsoon. So their flow is dependent on the success/failure of monsoon.

So the states that have been sharing the river waters have come under extra pressure to save their farmers,

Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.This issue is definitely not new and has been raging for more than 5 decades now.

  • The river Cauvery has been shared by the states under 2 agreements – The Interstate agreements of 1872 and 1924.All was well, till the late 1960s when Karnataka wanted to build 4 new reservoirs in the tributaries of Cauvery.The Planning commission did not approve to give funds and neither did the Central government.But Karnataka state went ahead with the building of the reservoirs with its own funds. These reservoirs were Harangi , Kabini , Hemavathi, Suvarnavathy.This diverted some of the water of Cauvery due to which Tamil Nadu protested.It directed the Centre to create a Tribunal.But since the Centre did not create one, Tamilnadu moved the SC to order the centre. The tribunal was finally formed in 1990.

Article 262

neither the Supreme Court nor any court shall exercise jurisdiction in water dispute between states.

  • But the Supreme Court commented that it can however order the Centre to create a Tribunal which it is supposed to do so under the Art.262 and the Interstate Water Disputes Act,1956.
  • To cut short to the story, the CWDT came up with its final order in 2007, giving

region

Water (tmcft)

TN

419

Karnataka

270

Kerala

30

Puducherry

7

  • Both Karnataka and Tamilnadu contested this CWDT order in the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), which are still pending.
  • This has prevented the Centre from publishing the CWDT award in the gazette(which means it will implement the award).
  • In the meanwhile, because of the long time the CWDT took to give its decision, it gave an interim order in 1991 itself for the riparian states.
  • To implement this interim measure, the Cauvery River Authority (CRA) and the Cauvery Monitoring Committee(CMC) were formed.
  • Among all this drama, confusion and powerplays there emerged a new problem.
  • The CWDT did not come up with a formula for situations when the flow in Cauvery was low(meaning a drought kind situation).
  • This is why the issue has flared up so much in 2012 as this year Karnataka has refused to release water on this basis.

Karnataka side

Tamil Nadu side

  1. Low monsoons, so low flow in Cauvery. Water not enough for their own farmers.
  2. Very unstable political situation in Karnataka with 3 CMs changing.
  3. So Cauvery being a very sensitive issue nobody wants to give it up easily.
  4. Samba crop growers are mainly dependent on Cauvery river. Irrigation is the main water source in the area. So their livelihood in danger.
  5. The government not wanting to notify the final order of CWDT is also agitating, as there seems to be no end to the problem.
  6. The government replied that it will notify the CWDT tribunal’s award by December end. But it has not done so. The reason is still not known(maybe even political). TN was wishing that there could be some relief if the gazette notification comes (in 2007 itself) but even after the Tribunal’s award the issue has been politically and legally entangled for the past 5 years. So TN’s position is in a deadlock.
 
  • Amid this the Supreme Court had asked the 2 Chief Ministers to meet up and try to finalize on the issue but that too failed.
  • Supreme Court also asked the Central government whether it had any intention to publish the CWDT tribunal award for which the Centre has replied that it will publish the award by December end but it has not done it.
  • The Centre must publish the CWDT order as soon as possible.
  • In the middle of all this the CWDT chairman has resigned, and no new chairman has been assigned yet. So the new chairman has to be assigned who has to be going-to-retire SC judge.
  • The CRA and CMC were only interim measures and thus when the award is published they will cease to exist. A new Cauvery Management Board (CMB) has to be formed to oversee the proper distribution of the river.
  • The major cause for the confusion is the SLPs being admitted in the SC. They have been pending for the last 5 years. They must be done away with as soon as possible.
  • Proper use of the Cauvery water by both sides so that they don’t become too dependent on the water.
  • The water sharing formula in low flow years must be formed with as soon as possible.
  •  
  • What is this dispute over Cauvery water?
  • The use and development of Cauvery waters were regulated by agreements of 1892 and 1924 between the erstwhile princely state of Mysore and the Madras presidency. The 1924 agreement had been necessary because Madras had objected to Mysore building the Krishnarajasagar dam across the Cauvery, and the agreement facilitated it by allowing Madras to build the Mettur dam. A significant feature of the agreement was that it put restrictions on the extent of area that could be safely irrigated by the two states by using the Cauvery waters.
  • With the reorganization of states in 1956, the situation changed a bit because the 802-km-long Cauvery river, which originateas at Talacauvery in Kodagu district in Karnataka, traverses mainly through Karnataka and Tamil Nadu while its basin covers areas in Kerala (which has three of its tributaries), and Karaikal region of Pondicherry, (now Puducherry) as well.
  • The basic dispute has always been about the sharing of waters in the Cauvery Basin. As per the 1892 and 1924 agreements the approximate river water allotments were as follows:
  • 75% to Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry,
    23% to Karnataka, and 
    the rest to Kerala .
  • So if it is all so clear-cut, where is the problem?
  • Unlike major north and north-eastern rivers like Indus, Ganga and Brhamaputra which originate from permanent glaciers, the Cauvery river is fed by seasonal monsoon rains and several tributaries. So in times of a heavy monsoon rains, this region witnesses excessive flow of water in the river and floods, but in times of insufficient rains, there is a drought like situation, and as the irrigation needs of farmers are not met, the two states indulge in the ancient ritual of blaming each other.
  • While pre-Independence disputes between Mysore (now largely Karnataka) and Madras (now largely Tamil Nadu and parts of Kerala) were largely settled through arbitrations and agreements by the British, the division of water became a serious issue after state-reorganisation. Starting from 1959 and throughout the 60s, Tamil Nadu objected to Karnataka building two dams but the latter went ahead, as the fiver-rounds of talks to solve the dispute failed. In 1974, Karnataka asserted that the 1924 agreement entailed a discontinuation of the water supply to Tamil Nadu after 50 years and the dispute as we know it today assumed centre-stage. Since the river originates in Karnataka, it argued, the state was entitled how best to use the river’s water and was not bound by the agreements imposed on the maharaja of Mysore by the colonial government which, it added, were skewed heavily in favour of Tamil Nadu. 

    On the other hand, Tamil Nadu pleaded that it had already developed millions acres of its agricultural land and as a result was heavily dependant on the existing pattern of usage. It claimed that any change in this pattern would adversely affect the livelihood of millions of farmers in the state. It had also been protesting the 

    In short Tamil, Nadu wanted to maintain status quo over its share of water while Karnataka wanted to tap most of the water flowing from its territory.

  • Tamil Nadu, being the lower-riperian state, charges that Karnataka has built new dams and expanded the agricultural areas irrigated by the available water, thus affecting the water-supply down-stream. As a result, there has been a dispute and tension between these two states over the division of water. 

    So was nothing done till now to resolve the dispute?

  • In 1976, after a series of discussions between the two states and the union government chaired by Jagjivan Ram, the then Irrigation Minister, a final draft was prepared based on findings of the a Cauvery Fact Finding Committee (CFFC) . This draft was accepted by all states and the union government also made an announcement to that effect in Parliament. However, Tamil Nadu came under President’s rule soon after that and the agreement was put on the backburner. The successive AIADMK government of M G Ramachandran rejected the draft agreement and insisted that the 1924 agreement had only provided for an extension and not a review. It demanded that a status quo should be restored and everyone should go back to the agreements of 1892 and 1924. Several meetings between the two states in the 1980s to find an amicable solution to the problem proved futile as there was no meeting ground between the two.
  • So, is that why the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal was formed?
  • Yes. In 1986, a farmer’s association from Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court demanding the constitution of a tribunal for adjudication for the Cauvery water dispute. In February 1990, the Supreme Court, while hearing the petition, directed the two states to complete negotiations before April 24. Following the failure of negotiations between the two states, the Supreme Court directed the union government to constitute a tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and pass an award and allocate water among the four states.
  • In accordance with Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, the National Front government headed by V.P. Singh constituted the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal on June 2, 1990 with Chittatosh Mookerjee, retired chief justice of the Bombay High Court, as Chairman and N.S. Rao, retired judge of the Patna High Court, and S.D. Agarwala, retired judge of the Allahabad High Court, as members. Justice Mookerjee resigned in 1999 and N.P. Singh was appointed in his place.

    Thereafter, the four parties to the dispute—Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Pondicherry — presented their demands to the Tribunal as under:

    Karnataka: 465 TMC 
    Kerala: 99.8 TMC 
    Pondicherry : 9.3 TMC 
    Tamil Nadu – the flow of the water should be in accordance with the terms of the agreements of 1892 and 1924; that is 566 TMC for Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry; 177 TMC for Karnataka and 5 TMC for Kerala.

    (TMC: Thousand Million Cubic feet) 
    .
    When and what was the interim order given by the Tribunal?

  • On Supreme Court’s instruction and Tamil Nadu’s plea, the Tribunal gave an interim award on 25 June 1991. In coming up with this award, the Tribunal calculated the average inflows into Tamil Nadu over a period of 10 years between 1980–81 and 1989–90 and the extreme years (of drought and floods) were ignored from this calculation. The average worked out to 205 TMC which Karnataka had to ensure reached Tamil Nadu in a water year. 

    The award also stipulated the weekly and monthly flows to be ensured by Karnataka for each month of the water year. The tribunal further directed Karnataka not to increase it irrigated land area from the existing 11.2 lakh acres.

  • What happened to the interim award? 

    Following the interim award, Karnataka witnessed its worst anti-Tamil riots in which dozens were killed and thousands fled the state. The violence which was centered mainly in some parts of Bangalore lasted for about a month and most schools and educational institutions in Bangalore remained closed during this period. Chennai and few other parts of Tamil Nadu also saw sporadic instances of violence.

    The Karnataka government also rejected the interim award and issued an ordinance seeking to annul the Tribunal’s award. However, the Supreme Court struck down the ordinance issued by Karnataka and upheld the Tribunal’s award which was subsequently gazetted by the government of India on 11 December 1991.

  • In 1992, 1993, and 1994, the rain was sufficient to pacify the the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka for the time being. But in 1995, the monsoons failed badly in Karnataka and it found itself unable fulfil the interim order. Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court demanding the immediate release of at least 30 TMC, which the apex refused to entertain. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal examined the case and recommended that Karntaka release only 11 TMC, which was again rejected by Karnataka. Tamil Nadu went back to the Supreme Court demanding that Karnataka be forced to obey the Tribunal’s order. The Supreme Court this time recommended that the then Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao intervene and find a political solution. The Prime Minister convened a meeting with the Chief Ministers of the two states and recommended that Karnataka release 6 TMC instead of the 11TMC that the tribunal ordered. Karnataka complied with the decision of the Prime Minister.
  • In 1998, the Cuavery River Authority (CRA) was formed with the Prime Minister as its chairperson and the Chief Ministers of the four states as its members to give effect to the implementation of the interim order and the related subsequent orders. Another body, the Cauvery Monitoring Committee, was formed as an expert body of engineers, technocrats and other officers who would take stock of the ‘ground realities’ and report to the CRA.
  • What is final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal ?
  • After 16 years, the three-member Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal delivered its 1000 page final award on February 5, 2007. While considering that the total availability of water the Cauvery basin spread across the 4 states is 740 TMC in a “normal year” the Tribunal has allocated the water as follows:

    Tamil Nadu: 419 TMC (which had demanded 512 TMC),
    Karnataka: 270 TMC (which had demanded 465 TMC), 
    Kerala: 30 TMC, and
    Pondicherry: 7 TMC 

    Besides allocating 726 TMC for the four states, the award reserves 10 TMC for environmental purposes and 4 TMC for inevitable outlets into the sea.

  • Thus as per the final award, Karnataka will release 192 TMC to Tamil Nadu from its Billigundlu site, which include 10 TMC meant for environmental purposes. Tamil Nadu will also get an additional 25 TMC through rainfall in the intervening distance between Billigundlu and Mettur. Thus, the total amount of water flowing from Karnataka’s territory into Mettur dam in Tamil Nadu will be 217 TMC and the rest of Tamil Nadu’s share will come from from rainfall and flows within its own territory. From its share of this 192 TMC water that comes from Karnataka, Tamil Nadu will then release 7 TMC to Pondicherry.
  • But who will regulate the division of water?
  • To regulate the release of water, a monitoring authority is to be constituted.
  • What if there is shortage of water to due to less rainfall? 

    The Tribunal is suitably vague. Its final award has not given a detailed formula in situations when there shortage of water due to insufficient rains. It merely says that in such situations, the allocated shares should be proportionally reduced.

  • What is the reaction to the final award of the Tribunal? 

    Actually, Tamil Nadu points out that it gets only a little more from Karnataka (217-7 = 210 TMC) than what it was awarded by the interim order in 1991 (205 TMC) but the government and the people of the state have largely hailed the February 5 final order of the Tribunal, calling it fair and equitable (though Jayalalitha has tried puncturing CM Karunanidhi’s balloon by somenitpicking). Pondicherry has also welcomed the Tribunal’s final award and the union minister for water resources Saifuddin Soz has also maintained that all the states will have to agree to the verdict of the Tribunal.
  • Karnataka, on the other hand, feels short-changed as it feels that it has emerged even worse-off than what the interim order awarded it, which had led to massive protests in the state. And since the water needs of the state have grown over the years, there is an economic and therefore a political cost of the award, and expectedly the Karnataka government has said it will file a revision petition within the stipulated 90 days before the tribunal seeking a review of the order, terming it as “shocking” and “unacceptable”. There have been sporadic protests against the award as well.
  • 2011 – Reports on Water Situation in Tamil Nadu[edit]
    • Prof. S Janakarajan, from Madras Institute of Development Studies, Tamil Nadu, submitted a report to the India Water Portal, in Dec 2011, on the increasing levels of Water Pollution in Tamil Nadu.
    • The Rivers of Cooum RiverAdyar RiverPalar River, Cauvery etc, with high levels of water pollution, due to sewage and industrial effluents, led Tamil Nadu towards Severe Water Shortage.[12]
    • The Palar River was ranked the World’s 3rd most polluted river, by the Blacksmith Institute in 2006.[13]
    • Such factors stem similar Periyar River Drinking water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
    • 2012[edit]
      • On 19 September 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is also the Chairman of the Cauvery River Authority, directed Karnatakato release 9,000 cusecs of Kaveri water to Tamil Nadu at Biligundlu (the border) daily. But Karnataka felt that this was impractical due to the drought conditions prevailing because of the failed monsoon. Karnataka then walked out of the high level meeting as a sign of protest. On 21 September, Karnataka filed a petition before the Cauvery River Authority seeking review of its 19 September ruling.
      • On 24 September, Tamil Nadu’s Chief minister directed the officials to immediately file a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to Karnataka to release Tamil Nadu its due share of water.[14]
      • On 28 Sep 2012, the Supreme Court slammed the Karnataka government for failing to comply with the directive of the Cauvery River Authority.[15] Left with no other option, Karnataka started releasing water. This led to wide protests and violence in Karnataka.[16]
      • On 4 October 2012, the Karnataka government filed a review petition before the Supreme Court seeking a stay on its 28 September order directing it to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water everyday to Tamil Nadu, until 15 October.[17]
      • On 6 October 2012, Several Kannada organisations, under the banner of “Kannada Okkoota”, called a Karnataka bandh (close down) on 6 October in protest against the Kaveri water release.[18] On 8 October, the Supreme Court of India announced the release of 9,000 cusecs has to be continued and it is up to the Cauvery River Authority’s head, the Prime Minister, as a responsible person, to ensure this happened. The Prime Minister ruled out a review of the Cauvery River Authority’s decision until 20 October, rejecting the plea by both the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party leaders from Karnataka. Within a few hours, Karnataka stopped release of Kaveri water to Tamil Nadu. [19]
      • On 9 October 2012, Tamil Nadu’s chief minister directed authorities to immediately file a contempt petition against the Karnataka government for flouting the verdict of the Supreme Court by unilaterally stopping the release of water to Tamil Nadu.[20] Tamil Nadu made a fresh plea in the Supreme Court on 17 October, reiterating its demand for appropriate directions to be issued to Karnataka to make good the shortfall of 48 tmcft of water as per the distress sharing formula.[21]
      • On 15 November 2012, The Cauvery Monitoring Committee directed the Karnataka government to release 4.81 tmcft to Tamil Nadu between 16 and 30 November.[22]
      • On 6 December, the supreme court directed Karnataka to release 10,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu. The court asked the union government to indicate the time frame within which the final decision of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, which was given in February 2007, was to be notified. This decision was given in the view of saving the standing crops of both the states.[clarification needed][23]
      • Indian Government notifies Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal[edit]
        • On 20 February 2013, based on the directions of the Supreme Court, the Indian Government has notified the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) on sharing the waters of the Cauvery system among the basin States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala and Union territory of Puducherry. The “extraordinary” notification in the gazette dated 19 February 2013 says the order takes effect on the date of publication.[24] The Tribunal, in a unanimous decision in 2007, determined the total availability of water in the Cauvery basin at 740 thousand million cubic (tmc) feet at the Lower Coleroon Anicut site, including 14 tmcft for environmental protection and seepage into the sea. The final award makes an annual allocation of 419 tmcft to Tamil Nadu in the entire Cauvery basin, 270 tmcft to Karnataka, 30 tmcft to Kerala and 7 tmcft to Puducherry.[25][26][27]
 
 
 
 

Karnataka

Tamil Nadu

Kerala

Puducherry

Total

Basin Area (in km²)[2]

34,273(42%)

44,016(54%)

2,866(3.5%)

148(-)

81,155

Share for each state as per Cauvery Tribunal final award Dated 19 February 2013 [28]

270 (37%)

419 (58%)

30 (4%)

7 (1%)

726

  • Temporary Supervisory Committee

In response to the Special Leave Petition (SLP) lodged by Tamilnadu earlier, the Supreme Court on 10th May, 2013 issued an interim direction to the Government of India (GoI) to establish a temporary Supervisory Committee to implement the Cauvery tribunal order till the constitution of “Cauvery Management Board” as stated in the tribunal order. GoI issued the gazette notification on 22nd May, 2013 establishing the said Supervisory Committee