Examine the role of Zonal Councils in resolving inter-state disputes, citing recent examples.

Zonal Councils are statutory advisory bodies created under Part III (Sections 15–22) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, grouping states into five zones under the chairmanship of the Union Home Minister, to develop what Nehru called "the habit of cooperative working" [1]. Their record suggests they resolve disputes effectively as consensus-builders, not as adjudicators.

Institutional features that aid dispute resolution

• Advisory, not binding: states negotiate without the risk of an imposed award, lowering political costs of compromise [1].
• High political weight: chaired by the Union Home Minister with Chief Ministers as members, decisions carry immediate executive backing [1].
• Technical preparation: Standing Committees of Chief Secretaries screen and pre-settle items before ministerial meetings [1].

Recent examples

• Sone river dispute (Bihar–Jharkhand): the 27th Eastern Zonal Council meeting at Ranchi (July 2025) built consensus on apportioning undivided Bihar's 7.75 MAF share under the Bansagar Agreement, 1973 [2]. The resulting MoU (New Delhi, August 2026) gave Bihar 5.75 MAF and Jharkhand 2 MAF, settling a 25-year successor-state dispute without any tribunal [3].
• Zonal Councils have also mediated boundary, security and inter-state transport coordination issues among member states [2].

Limitations

• No enforcement power: implementation rests wholly on state goodwill.
• Irregular functioning: the Eastern Zonal Council met in 2025 after a two-year gap [2].
• Restricted domain: inter-state river water disputes are constitutionally channelled away from courts by Article 262 to tribunals under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, whose 2019 Amendment still allows four-and-a-half years for adjudication [4]; politically polarised disputes like Cauvery and Mahadayi have resisted council-level settlement.

Zonal Councils thus work best where political will already exists, converting negotiation into durable agreements far faster than litigation. Regularising their meetings, strengthening their secretariat, and routing disputes first through them — with tribunals as a fallback — would make cooperative federalism the norm rather than the exception.