Karnataka says rain enabled it to release Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu within the state’s allocation, while Tamil Nadu argues the release was not voluntary and asks for additional water. Tamil Nadu files an additional affidavit in the Supreme Court, maintaining that Karnataka’s compliance is not voluntary.
Tamil Nadu also states that only 19.49% of the allocated Cauvery water has been realised from Karnataka. The outlets differ mainly in emphasis: Karnataka attributes the ability to meet the allotment to rainfall, whereas Tamil Nadu focuses on the shortfall and challenges the basis and character of Karnataka’s release, arguing that more water is needed.
The dispute plays out in ongoing Supreme Court proceedings over implementation of Cauvery water sharing arrangements, with both sides presenting their positions on what determines Karnataka’s ability to supply and whether releases meet the required commitments.
