Goa Water Resources Minister Subhash Shirodkar on Friday announced that the state government would soon approach the Supreme Court to request permission for a joint inspection of the Kalasa Banduri river diversion project. The decision comes amid the continuing dispute between Goa and Karnataka over the diversion of water from the Mhadei (also spelled Mahadayi) river — a long-standing inter-state issue that has seen legal, political, and environmental battles stretch across decades.

Speaking after chairing a meeting of the committee constituted by the Goa Legislative Assembly to examine the Mhadei issue, Shirodkar said the state plans to move the Supreme Court in November. The proposed inspection, he explained, would involve officials from the Mahadayi PRAWAH (Progressive River Authority for Welfare and Harmony), a central authority established to oversee the implementation of the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal’s award, along with representatives from all three states involved — Goa, Karnataka, and Maharashtra.

The minister said that Goa’s earlier request for a joint inspection had been rejected by the PRAWAH authority, which cited that the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court. However, after receiving “several useful suggestions” from members during the committee meeting, the Goa government now intends to directly seek the Court’s permission to facilitate an on-ground assessment.

“There are some good suggestions from the members regarding the Mhadei issue, one of the most important being to seek permission from the Supreme Court for a joint inspection. This will include members of the PRAWAH, our state officers, and representatives from all concerned states. Once allowed, the PRAWAH can offer its technical opinion and assessment,” Shirodkar said.

He added that such an inspection would allow Goa to present a clearer case before the Court and demonstrate the alleged changes being made to the natural flow of the river by Karnataka. “Our officers have gathered evidence indicating that water is being diverted by altering the course of the streams, which affects Goa’s ecosystem and the flow of the river into our state. We must ensure the tribunal’s orders are being respected,” he said.

Goa has consistently accused Karnataka of proceeding with construction work and diverting water from the Mhadei basin without necessary environmental and inter-state clearances. According to Goa, the Kalasa and Banduri projects—designed to divert water from tributaries of the Mhadei into the Malaprabha river basin—pose a threat to the state’s ecology, drinking water sources, and biodiversity.

The Mhadei river, which Karnataka refers to as the Mahadayi, originates in the Bhimgad Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka’s Belagavi district. From there, it flows through the Western Ghats into Goa before emptying into the Arabian Sea at Panaji. Along its 111-kilometre course, the river sustains several wildlife sanctuaries, forest ecosystems, and rural communities, making it one of the most ecologically sensitive rivers in western India.

The dispute over its waters began in the late 1980s, when Karnataka first proposed the Kalasa and Banduri diversion projects to meet the drinking water needs of its drought-prone northern districts, including Hubballi and Dharwad. Goa objected, arguing that such diversion would harm the river’s natural ecosystem and reduce freshwater inflows into the state’s Mandovi basin, which serves as a crucial lifeline for drinking water, agriculture, and navigation.

In response to these disputes, the central government set up the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal in 2010 under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act. After years of hearings, the tribunal delivered its award in August 2018, allocating 13.42 thousand million cubic feet (tmc ft) of water to Karnataka, 24 tmc ft to Goa, and 1.33 tmc ft to Maharashtra. The decision fell far short of Karnataka’s demand to divert 36.5 tmc ft into the Malaprabha river basin, sparking discontent on both sides.

Goa, for its part, remained firm in its stance against any water diversion outside the Mhadei basin. The state government argued that the tribunal’s award permitted only limited, captive use within the same basin and that Karnataka’s ongoing activities amounted to a violation of those conditions. Environmental activists in Goa have also warned that the diversion could devastate the Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary, harm local agriculture, and impact the Mandovi river’s flow during the dry season.

Both Goa and Karnataka subsequently approached the Supreme Court, challenging different aspects of the 2018 tribunal award. While Karnataka sought greater allocation of water, Goa demanded stricter enforcement to prevent illegal diversion.

The issue has repeatedly spilled into political confrontations as well. The Goa government has accused Karnataka of proceeding with construction despite pending legal challenges, while Karnataka leaders have accused Goa of obstructing a project meant to serve the water-scarce regions of their state. Periodically, the dispute has also triggered protests in both states, with farmers’ groups and environmentalists raising competing demands.

The Mahadayi PRAWAH authority was established following the tribunal’s award to supervise the implementation of its decisions and monitor the states’ compliance. However, its functioning has been limited by ongoing litigation, as both Goa and Karnataka’s petitions remain pending before the Supreme Court.

The Goa government believes that a joint inspection, carried out under the supervision of the PRAWAH and approved by the apex court, could provide a factual and scientific assessment of the situation on the ground. Such a move, officials say, would also help verify whether Karnataka’s activities align with the terms of the tribunal’s award and whether any ecological damage is occurring as a result of ongoing work.

Goa’s political leadership has also been under pressure from environmental groups and opposition parties to take a stronger stance on the issue. Critics argue that the state must act urgently to safeguard the Mhadei’s natural flow before irreversible changes occur. The government’s plan to approach the Supreme Court in November is seen as an effort to demonstrate its commitment to protecting Goa’s water resources.

“The Mhadei is our lifeline,” Shirodkar said after the meeting. “We have always maintained that this is not merely a political issue but an environmental one. Goa’s rivers, forests, and people depend on this water. We will take every step necessary to ensure justice for our state.”

Experts note that the Mhadei dispute exemplifies the growing tension between developmental and ecological priorities in India’s inter-state water conflicts. The Western Ghats, a UNESCO World Heritage site, are particularly sensitive to such interventions, and any change in hydrological balance could have long-term implications for biodiversity and climate resilience in the region.

As Goa prepares to petition the Supreme Court once again, the outcome could have far-reaching consequences not only for the three riparian states — Goa, Karnataka, and Maharashtra — but also for future inter-state water governance in India. For now, the battle over the Mhadei river continues, reflecting the complex intersection of law, environment, and politics that has defined this decades-long conflict.