The #Cauvery petition is not the only inter-state water dispute in the Supreme Court

Monday’s order by the Supreme Court of India has sparked off violence in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The city of Bangalore, as well as Mandya region of Karnataka has been witness to large scale protests and rioting, bringing life to a standstill..Though Karnataka knocked at the doors of Supreme Court to get the adverse order modified, the apex court stood firm asking the State governments to ensure that law and order is maintained. But the Cauvery river water battle is not the only inter-state dispute over water that is pending in the Supreme Court..The Mullaperiyar case.States involved: Kerala, Tamil Nadu.Causetitle: State of Kerala v. State of Tamil Nadu – Original suit 3/ 2006.Case History.This is one of the biggest inter-state disputes in the Supreme Court. Although a judgment was pronounced in the matter, this has not deterred the parties from filing multiple applications..This case has its genesis in a lease agreement entered into between British India and the erstwhile Travancore State in 1886 over the Mullaperiyar dam. Built across river Periyar and located in Kerala, water from the catchment area of the dam feeds five drought prone districts of Tamil Nadu and form their lifeline. The dam in turn prevents flooding in Kerala during the monsoons..The agreement between Travancore and Britain was for 999 years whereby Travancore leased out the land for the dam and the right to use the water from the artificial lake formed by the dam. In 1970, two supplemental agreements were executed between Tamil Nadu and Kerala. These altered certain conditions of the 1886 lease agreement but the lease itself was unaffected..The dispute, however, began in 1979 with Kerala raising concerns about the safety of the dam. Kerala wrote to the Tamil Nadu Government to take immediate steps to strengthen the dam. Simultaneously, it also requested the Central Government to depute a team from Central Water Commission (CWC) to inspect the dam and suggest strengthening measures. Pursuant to this, the CWC suggested strengthening measures which were carried out by Tamil Nadu government. While the strengthening measures were being carried out, the water level in the dam was to be kept at 136 feet..However, even after the work on the dam, Kerala refused to raise the water level beyond 136 feet resulting in a number of petitions before the Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court..The Supreme Court finally transferred all these cases to itself and, in 2006, directed Kerala to raise the level of water to 142 feet. Kerala then proceeded to circumvent the judgment by including Mullaperiyar dam in a list of endangered dams under the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act resulting in a further round of litigation..Kerala opposed raising the water level citing safety concerns; the government also challenged the validity of the 1886 agreement itself. However, the court once again ruled in favour of Tamil Nadu. It held that the right conferred by the Supreme Court by its 2006 judgment cannot be nullified by Kerala through a legislation. Consequently, it held that the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act in so far as it applies to the Mullaperiyar dam is unconstitutional. It therefore, directed that Kerala cannot object to the raising of the water to 142 feet..Bar and Bench.The matter was last heard by a Bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur, Justice R Banumathi and Justice UU Lalit..Senior Advocates Harish Salve, Rajeev Dhavan, late Vinod Bobde, Rakesh Dwivedi and Subramonium Prasad are some of the Senior Advocates who appeared in the case..Current Status: The last of the applications, which was eventually withdrawn, was filed by Tamil Nadu, and came up for hearing in April this year..Satluj-Yamuna Canal link .States Involved: Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh.Cause Title: Special Reference No.1/2004 U/A 143(1) Of The Constitution Of India [Reg: The Punjab Termination Of Agreement Act, 2004].Case History.The case is a special reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 made in 2004. The reference pertains to the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 passed by Punjab terminating all the water sharing agreements with the neighbouring States. This legislation had jeopardised the construction of Satluj-Yamuna Link canal (SYL canal)..Interest in the matter was renewed after the Punjab government introduced another Bill to return the land acquired for the construction of the canal. Haryana took strong objection to this with Cabinet Minister Anil Vij taking to Twitter asking the Centre to intervene and stop Punjab from going ahead with the bill..On March 17, the court passed an interim order directing that status quo be maintained with respect to lands, works, property and portions of the SYL canal and all lands within the alignment of the SYL canal within the State of Punjab..Bar and Bench.The case was heard by a Bench presided by Justice Anil R Dave and comprising Justices PC Ghose, Shiva Kirti Singh, AK Goel and Amitava Roy..Senior Advocates Ram Jethmalani and RS Suri appeared for Punjab while Shyam Divan and Jagdip Dhankar appeared for Haryana. Senior Advocate JS Attri appeared for Himachal Pradesh while CS Vaidyanathan appeared for Rajasthan. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appeared for Delhi..Current Status: The Constitution bench hearing the matter reserved judgment on May 12 this year..The Cauvery Water dispute .States Involved: Karnataka, Tamil Nadu.Cause Title: State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu – IA 12/2016 in CA 2456/2007.Case History.The Karnataka-Tamil Nadu dispute over the waters of the Cauvery river has its roots in two agreements in 1892 and 1924 between the erstwhile Madras Presidency and Princely State of Mysore, one that outlived its utility long ago, but sowed the seeds of lasting discontent between the States..Karnataka has claimed that it does not receive its due share of the water and has demanded that the agreements be renegotiated based on equitable sharing of the water. Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, claims that the agrarian economy of the state is heavily dependent upon the waters of the Cauvery, and any departure from the status quo would greatly impact the livelihood of the farmers..After several rounds of failed negotiations, the Supreme Court directed the constitution of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, which gave its award in 2007, allowing Tamil Nadu to draw from the reservoir a fixed amount of water every day..However, the dispute continued after both the States filed a petition in the tribunal to review the decision..In 2016 this year, Tamil Nadu again petitioned the Supreme Court as Karnataka submitted that it had no more water to share from its reservoir. The Court passed an order on September 5 directing Karnataka to release 15000 cusecs of water per day for 10 days. This triggered widespread protests in Karnataka and their government hurriedly moved an application seeking modification of the order of September 5..The application was heard on September 12, by Justices Dipak Misra and UU Lalit, who directed that Karnataka is required to release 12000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu per day till September 20, which is when the next hearing will take place..Bar and Bench.The matter is being heard by a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and UU Lalit. .Senior Advocates Shekhar Naphade, Rakesh Dwivedi and Subramonium Prasad appeared for Tamil Nadu while Senior Advocates Fali S Nariman, Anil B Divan and SS Javali appeared for Karnataka..Current Status: The matter is now pending with the Cauvery Monitoring Authority, which met on September 12 to decide the quantum of water to be released to Tamil Nadu and other states..The meeting ended on an inconclusive note in the wake of the Supreme Court’s new directive, with both the States refusing to agree on a particular figure with respect to the quantum of water to be released.