Discuss the constitutional and legal framework governing inter-state river water disputes in India. Why do tribunals under the ISRWD Act, 1956 face chronic delays?

Water is a State subject (Entry 17, State List), but the regulation of inter-state rivers falls under Entry 56 of the Union List — a split that makes river disputes an inherently federal problem. The Constitution therefore creates a separate adjudicatory channel for them, whose design is sound but whose delivery has been slow.

Constitutional framework

• Article 262 empowers Parliament to provide by law for adjudication of disputes on inter-state river waters, and to bar the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court, over such disputes [1].
• This carves out an exception to Article 131's original jurisdiction; in practice, however, States still approach the Supreme Court on procedural questions — such as compelling the Centre to constitute a tribunal — and awards are challenged under Article 136.

Statutory machinery

• The Inter-State River Water Disputes (ISRWD) Act, 1956 (Act 33 of 1956) is the law enacted under Article 262 [1]. Under Section 3, a State may request reference; if the Centre finds negotiation has failed, it constitutes an ad hoc tribunal, whose award, once notified in the Gazette, binds the parties [1].
• Tribunals such as Ravi-Beas, Vansadhara, Mahadayi, Mahanadi and Krishna operate under this Act [2]. The Cauvery Tribunal was replaced in 2018 by the Cauvery Water Management Authority and Regulation Committee, a shift from adjudication to permanent basin management [3].

Why delays are chronic

• The Act set no firm outer limit — three years, extendable by two — and no deadline for publishing the report, so awards drifted: Ravi-Beas ran 33 years, Cauvery 29 [4].
• Vacancies stall proceedings, with no upper age limit for members and no institutional continuity, since each tribunal is newly constituted [4].
• Centre's discretion over reference, contested hydrological data and high political stakes delay matters even before adjudication begins.

The ISRWD (Amendment) Bill, 2019 — proposing a Disputes Resolution Committee, a single permanent tribunal with benches, and a two-year timeline [4] — points the right way. Coupled with reliable basin data and CWMA-style permanent authorities, it can convert a constitutionally robust framework into genuinely timely water justice, strengthening cooperative federalism.