The Indian central government said Karnataka does not require consent from other riparian states to proceed with the proposed Mekedatu balancing reservoir [1].

This clarification addresses a long-standing dispute over water rights on the Cauvery River. Because the project involves the storage and diversion of water, it has faced significant opposition from downstream states that rely on the river for agriculture and drinking water.

The Union Ministry of Jal Shakti said that Karnataka can move forward without the approval of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, or Puducherry [1]. The government based this position on a legal interpretation of existing judicial precedents regarding water sharing and project implementation [2].

According to the central government, the 2018 [3] Supreme Court verdict on the Cauvery water dispute does not mandate that Karnataka obtain the consent of lower riparian states for such projects [2]. This ruling serves as the primary legal basis for the Centre's current stance, effectively removing a perceived administrative hurdle for the Karnataka government.

The Mekedatu project is designed as a balancing reservoir to regulate water flow and ensure water security for the state of Karnataka [1]. However, the project remains a point of contention for Tamil Nadu, which argues that the reservoir could reduce the flow of water reaching its borders.

By clarifying that the 2018 [3] judgment does not require a consensus among all riparian states, the central government has shifted the legal landscape of the dispute. The move allows Karnataka to advance its infrastructure plans without waiting for a diplomatic agreement with its neighbors [1].

“Karnataka does not need the consent of other riparian states to proceed with the proposed Mekedatu balancing reservoir.”

This clarification reduces the legal leverage of downstream states like Tamil Nadu in blocking the Mekedatu project. By decoupling the project's legality from the consent of other riparian states, the central government is prioritizing the execution of state-level infrastructure over the requirement for regional consensus, which may heighten political tensions between the involved states.