Examine the role of Zonal Councils in resolving inter-state disputes, with reference to the recent Bihar-Jharkhand Sone River water-sharing MoU.

Zonal Councils are statutory advisory bodies created under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and chaired by the Union Home Minister, to promote inter-state coordination. The recent Bihar-Jharkhand MoU on Sone waters, ending a dispute dating to the 2000 bifurcation, shows their value as negotiating platforms — though their reach remains advisory.

How Zonal Councils enable dispute resolution

• Structured dialogue: the 27th Eastern Zonal Council meeting at Ranchi took up long-pending inter-state issues — Masanjore Dam (Mayurakshi), Taiyabpur Barrage (Mahananda) and Indrapuri Reservoir (Son) — placing them on a time-bound agenda [1].
• Political apex convening: chief ministers and the Union Home Minister sit together, so bargaining happens at the level that can actually concede.
• Continuity through secretariat follow-up: issues are tracked across successive meetings rather than lapsing.
• Negotiated over adjudicated settlement: the Sone question was closed by a bilateral MoU facilitated by the Centre [2], avoiding the delay typical of tribunals under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.

The Sone case as illustration

• The dispute arose from a bifurcation-era liability: the Bansagar Agreement, 1973 (MP–UP–undivided Bihar, cost shared 2:1:1) had apportioned Sone waters as MP 5.25 MAF, UP 1.25 MAF, undivided Bihar 7.75 MAF [3]; Jharkhand's creation left the last share unsplit.
• Settlement unlocks the stalled Indrapuri Reservoir project, promising assured irrigation across Rohtas, Kaimur, Aurangabad and neighbouring districts [1].

Limitations

• Councils are recommendatory, with no enforcement power; outcomes depend on political convergence.
• Meetings are irregular — the Eastern Zone met after a gap of about two years.
• They cannot displace Article 262 and Entry 56, List I, where adjudication is constitutionally provided.

The Sone MoU shows that cooperative federalism can settle what litigation prolongs. Regularising Council meetings, strengthening secretariat follow-up and empanelling technical expertise — as the Punchhi Commission urged — would let these forums resolve disputes upstream of tribunals, advancing both water security and federal comity.