"Interstate disputes over shared hydro-assets created under reorganisation statutes reveal the limits of judicial resolution." Discuss with reference to the BBMB arrears case.

Section 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 set up the Bhakra (later Bhakra Beas) Management Board to run assets owned jointly by the states that came out of erstwhile Punjab [2]. Himachal Pradesh (HP) has spent decades fighting for its 7.19% share. The case shows that courts can declare such rights but struggle to deliver them.

Limits of judicial resolution exposed

• Right declared, amount not fixed: The SC upheld HP's 7.19% share in 2011. It put a figure on it, 11,973 MU, only in November 2026, after about 15 years of pendency [1].
• Relief worth less in practice: Arrears due since 1966 will be paid over another 20 years, as electricity rather than cash. What they are really worth depends on the price HP can get for that power [1].
• No one checks delivery: The Ministry of Power appoints the BBMB Chairman [3]. Yet no body checks whether the states that owe HP actually deliver. So disputes skip the board and go to court.
• Outcome shaped outside court: HP refused to share the Kishau dam cost until its dues were settled. Haryana then filed an SC affidavit backing HP [1]. Bargaining, not adjudication, broke the deadlock.

Why courts still matter

• Only binding forum: Article 262 tribunals under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 deal with river waters. They do not cover power shares in assets jointly owned under a statute.
• Anchor for bargaining: The 2011 verdict made HP's claim credible. HP's leverage also had limits. Punjab is not among the six Upper Yamuna states in these projects [4], so its dues could come only through the court.

Way forward

• Monitoring: The Ministry of Power should require BBMB to report each year how many MU have actually been delivered to HP.
• Institutional forum: Add a dispute-resolution clause to the 1966 Act, or refer disputes to the Inter-State Council (Article 263).
• Consultation: Changes to BBMB rules should first be agreed with all four partner states: Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and HP.

The BBMB case shows that courts can settle who is owed. Whether the dues are actually paid depends on administrative follow-up and political will. Court decrees backed by monitoring and consultative bodies can turn bargaining federalism into cooperative federalism, and honour the shared-asset arrangement the 1966 Act intended.