Read the passage given below and then answer the questions given below the passage. Some words may be highlighted for your attention. Read carefully.

By upholding the approach of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, while slightly modifying its award, the Supreme Court has boosted the prospects of a viable water-sharing arrangement among the riparian States. That it has reduced the Tribunal’s allocation for Tamil Nadu and raised Karnataka’s share does detract from the fairness of the decision. It has underscored that no single State has primacy in accessing water resources and that rivers are national assets. This is a significant recognition of the principle of equitable distribution of inter-State rivers. The Supreme Court’s message is that the Centre should get down to creating a legal and technical framework to implement the Tribunal’s award, as modified by the judgment. This is the strongest affirmation so far of a basin State’s right to its share of water on a regular basis without having to rush to the court for ad hoc orders to open the sluices of reservoirs during monsoon-deficit years. It may be possible for either side to cavil at the judgment, questioning the reduction in quantum or the obligation to adhere to specified monthly release targets, but these would be exercises in political partisanship rather than legitimate grievances warranting legal redress. The court makes it clear that the contentious 1924 agreement had lapsed. It noticed that the State did not have bargaining power at the time of entering the said agreement. Yet, post-Independence, Karnataka chose not to denounce the agreement. While the agreement cannot be called “unconscionable”, as Karnataka had not raised objections to it after Independence, the court observed that several clauses in the 1924 agreement did not indicate permanency, and had lapsed after 50 years, by 1974. The court also rightly observed that the overall population of river basin States has to be placed on a pedestal and be taken into account as a fundamental principle for equitable distribution.

Keeping this in mind, the court acknowledges the need for a higher share of Cauvery water for Bengaluru, which now has more than 10 million inhabitants. The 2007 tribunal order had reduced Karnataka’s share for the sole reason that only one-third of Bengaluru falls within the river basin, and that 50% of the drinking water supply would be met through groundwater. The Supreme Court rightly notes that the tribunal’s view ignores the basic principle pertaining to drinking water. Keeping in mind the global status that Bengaluru has attained, an additional 4.75 tmc ft has been awarded to it in order to implement the existing water supply schemes. The remaining 10 tmc ft can be used to expand agricultural activities. However, there are certain issues in the order that need to be addressed. The Inter-State Water Disputes (ISWD) Act, 1956 stipulates that besides the chairperson and two former High Court or Supreme Court judges appointed by the Chief Justice of India, a minimum of two assessors (technical experts) are to assist the tribunal. While the Supreme Court sought the assistance of technical experts in the coal scam and the iron ore mining case, it has not done so in the Cauvery dispute. Prime among these unresolved issues is the framing of a deficit formula for sharing water, and construction of hydel projects on the common boundary of the river. For instance, Karnataka plans a run-of-the-flow Mekedatu hydel project. The status of this project is yet to be decided within the framework of the judgment. In 1991, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in its interim award declared that 205 tmc ft should be allocated to Tamil Nadu. This was slashed to 192 tmc ft in the tribunal’s 2007 order. This has been further cut to 177.25 tmc ft by the Supreme Court. While these numbers have enormous political ramifications, it is highly unlikely that they will change the water supply conditions in Tamil Nadu in any meaningful manner.