Inter-state river water disputes

Also called: Article 262, Adjudication of inter-state water disputes · Topic: Federalism and Centre-State Relations · NCERT: Class 11, Ch 7 "Federalism"

Meaning

An inter-state river water dispute is a quarrel between two or more states over how the waters of an inter-state river or river valley are used, shared or controlled. Under Article 262, Parliament may make a law to settle these disputes and may also stop the Supreme Court and all other courts from hearing them.

Water is needed for drinking and farming, so voters in every state involved feel the result directly. NCERT (Class 11, Ch 7 "Federalism") says these quarrels look legal but are really political. That is why water disputes are seen as more serious than border disputes.

Explanation

The constitutional basis

• Article 262 has two parts:
• Art. 262(1): Parliament may make a law to adjudicate disputes over inter-state river waters. To adjudicate means to have a court or tribunal decide the case.

• Art. 262(2): Parliament may also make a law that stops the Supreme Court and every other court from hearing such a dispute.

• Article 131 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over disputes between the Centre and states, or between states. Original jurisdiction means the case starts in the Supreme Court itself. Two limits apply:

• Art. 131 is subject to Art. 262.

• Its proviso leaves out disputes that come from treaties or agreements signed before the Constitution.

• Where water sits in the lists:

• "Water" is a State List subject (Entry 17, List II).
• Entry 17 is subject to Entry 56 of the Union List. Entry 56 lets Parliament regulate and develop inter-state rivers in the public interest.
• Both the ISRWD Act 1956 and the River Boards Act 1956 are based on Entry 56.

The procedure under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956

• The ISRWD Act is the law Parliament made under Art. 262. It sets up ad hoc tribunals, which means a new tribunal is created for each river dispute.
• Steps in order: 1. Complaint (s.3): a state government sends a complaint to the Centre. 2. Talks: the Centre first tries to settle the dispute through negotiation. 3. Tribunal (s.4): if talks fail, the Centre sets up a Water Disputes Tribunal. It must do so within 1 year of the request. This deadline was added by the 2002 amendment. The tribunal is usually headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge. 4. Award (s.5): the tribunal investigates and gives its award, which is its final decision. It has 3 years, and this can be extended by 2 years (2002 amendment). 5. Clarification (s.5(3)): the states or the Centre may ask the tribunal to explain its award. They must ask within 3 months of the award. 6. Publication (s.6(2)): the Centre publishes the award in the Official Gazette. Once published, it has the same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court. This rule was added in 2002. 7. Scheme (s.6A): the Centre may frame a scheme to carry out the award.

Limits: what courts can still do

• Section 11 says no court, including the Supreme Court, can hear a water dispute that has been referred to a tribunal.
• The courts are still not fully shut out:
• Art. 136 (special leave to appeal): the Supreme Court may allow an appeal against a decision of any court or tribunal. It heard the Cauvery appeals against the 2007 award this way.

• Art. 131: states can still file original suits against each other.

• Where the line falls: the Supreme Court has held that Section 11 stops it from reopening the water-sharing dispute itself. It does not stop the Court from checking whether a tribunal's award is lawful.

Reform: the ISRWD (Amendment) Bill 2019

• Timeline:
• Introduced in the Lok Sabha on 25 July 2019 [3].
• Passed by the Lok Sabha on 31 July 2019. PRS lists its status as "Passed by Lok Sabha" [3].

• Under Art. 107(5), a bill passed by the Lok Sabha but still pending in the Rajya Sabha lapses (dies) when the Lok Sabha is dissolved. So this bill would have lapsed when the 17th Lok Sabha was dissolved in 2024.

• Main features:

• One permanent tribunal with several benches, in place of separate ad hoc tribunals [2].
• Members: a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson, three judicial members and three expert members [2][3].
• Disputes Resolution Committee (DRC): set up by the Centre to settle the dispute through talks.
  • It has 1 year, extendable by 6 months [2][3].
  • Each state in the dispute nominates one member at Joint Secretary level [2].
  • A dispute goes to the tribunal only if the DRC fails [2].
• Award deadline: 2 years, extendable by 1 year [3].
• Data bank: an agency named by the Centre would keep a data bank and information system for each river basin [3].
• Existing tribunals would be dissolved, and their pending cases would move to the new tribunal [2].

In the Constitution and practice

• The legal framework:
• Art. 262 and Art. 131 in the Constitution.
• Entry 17, List II, read with Entry 56, List I.
• ISRWD Act 1956, amended in 2002.

• River Boards Act 1956: it lets the Centre set up advisory River Boards for inter-state rivers after consulting the states. No board has ever been set up, so experts call it a "dead letter" (a law that exists but is never used).

• Tribunals in practice:

• Five tribunals still exist: Ravi-Beas, Vansadhara, Mahadayi, Mahanadi and Krishna [4].
• Earlier awards include Krishna I (final award 1976), Godavari (1980) and Narmada (1979).
• Mahanadi Tribunal (2018): approved after Odisha complained about upstream barrages in Chhattisgarh [5].

• Krishna Tribunal-II: Andhra Pradesh was split in 2014. In 2023 the Cabinet gave the tribunal further terms of reference (the exact questions it must answer) to divide water between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana [6].

• Cauvery dispute (Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Puducherry):

• The tribunal was set up in 1990 and gave its award in 2007.
• In State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu (16 February 2018), the Supreme Court heard appeals under Art. 136. TMC below means thousand million cubic feet of water.
  • Karnataka's share rose from 270 to 284.75 TMC, because of Bengaluru's drinking-water needs. The Court held that drinking water comes first.
  • Tamil Nadu's share fell from 419 to 404.25 TMC.
  • Inter-state rivers were declared a national asset: no single state owns one.
• The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) was set up in June 2018 under the s.6A scheme. The Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) helps it.

• Protests continue in years of poor monsoon rain, as in 2016 and 2023.

• Mullaperiyar (Kerala v. Tamil Nadu): the courts settled this dispute directly, with no tribunal.

• In State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala (2014), a Constitution Bench heard an original suit. It struck down Kerala's 2006 dam-safety law and upheld the 142-foot water level.

• Ravi-Beas and the SYL canal:

• The Eradi Tribunal (1986) came out of the Rajiv Gandhi-Longowal Punjab Accord (1985).
• Punjab then passed the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act 2004, cancelling its water-sharing agreements with other states.

• In In re Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 (10 November 2016), the Supreme Court gave its opinion under Art. 143. It held that a state cannot cancel inter-state agreements on its own.

• Narmada: the 1979 award fixed the height of the Sardar Sarovar dam. The Narmada Bachao Andolan then opposed the dam because people were displaced. This shows that a tribunal can settle a quarrel between states, but not a quarrel between a state and its own people.

Don't confuse with

• Art. 262 vs Art. 131: Art. 131 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over inter-state disputes. Art. 262 lets Parliament remove water disputes from that jurisdiction, and Art. 131 is subject to Art. 262.
• ISRWD Act 1956 vs River Boards Act 1956: the ISRWD Act creates tribunals that decide disputes and is actively used. The River Boards Act allows only advisory boards, and none has ever been set up.
• Appeal under Art. 136 vs opinion under Art. 143: Cauvery (2018) was an appeal against a tribunal award under Art. 136. The Punjab Termination case (2016) was an advisory opinion requested by the President under Art. 143.
• Water disputes vs border disputes: water disputes go to tribunals under Art. 262 and the ISRWD Act. Border disputes have no such tribunal. They are handled through Art. 131 suits, talks between Chief Ministers, Zonal Councils or boundary commissions.

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 262(2): Parliament may bar the Supreme Court from hearing water disputes. ISRWD Act s.11 is the provision that actually does this.
• 2002 amendment: tribunal within 1 year of the request; award in 3 + 2 years; a published award has the force of a Supreme Court decree (s.6(2)).
• Trap: "No board has been formed under the River Boards Act 1956" is a correct statement.
• 2019 Bill: one permanent tribunal; DRC with 1 year + 6 months; award in 2 + 1 years [2][3]. Trap: it was passed only by the Lok Sabha [3].
• Cauvery 2018 (via Art. 136): Tamil Nadu 419 → 404.25 TMC; Karnataka 270 → 284.75 TMC; Kerala (30) and Puducherry (7) unchanged; rivers are a "national asset".
• Trap: Mullaperiyar was decided by the Supreme Court, not a tribunal. TN v. Kerala (2014) upheld the 142-foot level.

Mains Points

• Adjudication vs negotiation:
• Tribunals are slow. Cauvery took 17 years, from 1990 to 2007.
• Awards are often ignored, as Punjab did with the SYL canal, or reopened through appeals under Art. 136.

• Water is a political issue, so a lasting settlement needs agreement between the states and help from the Centre. The DRC idea in the 2019 Bill builds this step in [2].

• Institutional reform:

• A permanent tribunal with fixed deadlines, a data bank for each river basin and a DRC would make the process faster and more open [2][3].
• Unused tools are still available: the River Boards Act, the Inter-State Council (Art. 263) and Zonal Councils.

• CWMA and CWRC show how a basin-level body can carry out an award in practice.

• Federal principle:

• The Supreme Court has said rivers are a national asset and drinking water comes first (2018).
• It has also said a state cannot cancel inter-state agreements on its own (2016).
• Together these rulings limit the idea that a state "owns" water. They support cooperative federalism, where the Centre and the states work together.

Related concepts

• Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956
• Inter-state water disputes tribunal
• River Boards Act 1956
• Cauvery water dispute
• Cauvery Water Management Authority
• Narmada water dispute
• Ravi-Beas water dispute
• Inter-state border disputes
• Belgaum border dispute

Read more

• Inter-state disputes: river waters and borders