Inter-state disputes: river waters and borders

Detail

1. How NCERT frames inter-state disputes

• Inter-state conflict: a quarrel between two or more states of the Indian Union. Class 11, Federalism says these quarrels look legal but are really political. So negotiation (talks between the states, often with the Centre's help) matters as much as adjudication (a court or tribunal deciding the case).
• Two main kinds:
• Border disputes: states claim land held by a neighbouring state.

• River water disputes: states fight over their share of a river that flows through more than one state.

• Water disputes are more serious than border disputes. They involve drinking water and farming, so voters in every state involved feel the result directly.

• The NCERT activity and exercise on river disputes (Class 11, Ch 7) ask a basic question: should the Centre, a tribunal or the states themselves settle such a dispute? Section 7 below gives the answer.

2. The legal route for water disputes

• Inter-state river water dispute: a quarrel between states over how the waters of an inter-state river or river valley are used, shared or controlled.
• Article 262 has two parts:
• Art. 262(1): Parliament may make a law to settle ("adjudicate") such disputes.

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

• Article 131 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, meaning it hears the case first. This covers disputes between the Centre and states or between states. 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, which lets Parliament regulate inter-state rivers in the public interest.
• Both the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act and the River Boards Act are based on Entry 56.

3. Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956 (ISRWD Act)

• What it is: the law Parliament made under Art. 262. It provides for ad hoc tribunals, meaning a new tribunal is set up for each river dispute.
• Procedure, step by step:

Step	What happens	Time limit / rule
1	A state government sends a complaint to the Centre (s.3)	—
2	The Centre tries to settle it through talks	—
3	If talks fail, the Centre sets up a Water Disputes Tribunal (s.4)	Within 1 year of the request (added by the 2002 amendment)
4	The tribunal investigates and gives its award (final decision) (s.5)	3 years, extendable by 2 years (2002 amendment)
5	States or the Centre can ask the tribunal to clarify the award (s.5(3))	Within 3 months of the award
6	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 (s.6(2), added in 2002)
7	The Centre may frame a scheme to carry out the award (s.6A)	—

• Section 11: no court, including the Supreme Court, can hear a water dispute that has been referred to a tribunal.
• Courts still have a role:
• Art. 136: special leave to appeal, which lets the Supreme Court hear an appeal against any decision of any court or tribunal. The Cauvery appeals against the 2007 award were heard this way (2016-18).
• Art. 131: original suits between states.

• The Supreme Court has held that Section 11 bars it from reopening the water-sharing dispute itself. It does not bar the Court from checking whether a tribunal's award is lawful.

• Mullaperiyar dispute (Kerala v. Tamil Nadu): the courts settled it directly, without a tribunal.

• The dam stands in Kerala but is run by Tamil Nadu under a lease from 1886.
• 2006: on writ petitions, the Supreme Court allowed Tamil Nadu to raise the water level to 142 feet. Kerala then passed a 2006 dam-safety amendment law to cap the level.
• State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala (2014): in an original suit, a Constitution Bench struck down Kerala's 2006 law as unconstitutional. It upheld the 142-foot level and set up a supervisory committee.

4. River Boards Act 1956

• What it is: a law that lets the Centre set up advisory River Boards for inter-state rivers. A board would advise the states on regulating and developing the river, but only after consulting them.
• Status: no board has ever been set up under it. Experts call it a "dead letter", meaning a law that exists but is never used.

5. Reform: ISRWD (Amendment) Bill 2019

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

• 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 the bill would have lapsed when the 17th Lok Sabha was dissolved in 2024 (verify current).

• Main features:

• One permanent tribunal with several benches, replacing separate ad hoc tribunals [2].
• Members: a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson, three judicial members and three expert members [2][3]. Each bench has a Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson, one judicial member and one expert member [3].
• Existing tribunals would be dissolved. Their pending cases would move to the new tribunal [2].
• Disputes Resolution Committee (DRC), set up by the Centre:
  • It tries to settle the dispute through talks within 1 year, extendable by 6 months [2][3].
  • Each state in the dispute nominates one member at Joint Secretary level [2].
  • Only if the DRC fails does the dispute go to the tribunal [2].
• Award deadline: 2 years, extendable by 1 year (the 1956 Act allows 3 + 2 years) [3].
• Data bank: an agency named by the Centre keeps a data bank and information system for each river basin [3].

6. Water disputes tribunals at a glance

• Inter-state water disputes tribunal: a body set up under s.4 of the ISRWD Act for one particular river dispute. It is usually headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge.
• Tribunals still in existence: five, according to the Jal Shakti Ministry reply published by PIB [4]:
• Ravi-Beas
• Vansadhara
• Mahadayi
• Mahanadi
• Krishna

Tribunal	States	Constituted	Award
Krishna I	Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh	1969	1973 report; final 1976
Godavari	Maharashtra, AP, Karnataka, MP, Odisha	1969	1980
Narmada	Gujarat, MP, Maharashtra, Rajasthan	1969	1979
Ravi-Beas (Eradi Tribunal)	Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan	1986	1987 report; further reference pending
Cauvery	Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Puducherry	1990	2007 (changed by the Supreme Court in 2018)
Krishna II	Karnataka, Maharashtra, AP (now also Telangana)	2004	2010 report; further report 2013
Vansadhara	Andhra Pradesh, Odisha	2010	2017
Mahadayi (Mandovi)	Goa, Karnataka, Maharashtra	2010	2018
Mahanadi	Odisha, Chhattisgarh	2018	Still hearing (verify current)

• Mahanadi: the Union Cabinet approved this tribunal after Odisha complained about upstream barrages in Chhattisgarh [5].
• Krishna II after 2014: Andhra Pradesh was split in 2014. In 2023 the Cabinet gave Krishna Tribunal-II further terms of reference (the exact questions it must answer) under the ISRWD Act, to divide water between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana [6].

7. Case study: the Cauvery water dispute

• States involved: Karnataka (upstream), Tamil Nadu (downstream), Kerala and Puducherry.
• History: the 1892 and 1924 agreements were signed between Madras Presidency and Mysore state. Karnataka says they were unfair to it.
• Tribunal: set up in 1990. Its final award came in 2007:

State / use	2007 award (TMC)	Supreme Court 2018 (TMC)
Tamil Nadu	419	404.25
Karnataka	270	284.75
Kerala	30	30
Puducherry	7	7

TMC means thousand million cubic feet of water. Both totals also include 10 TMC kept for the environment and 4 TMC for unavoidable flow into the sea, making 740 TMC in all.

• State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu (16 February 2018):
• The Supreme Court heard appeals under Art. 136.
• It raised Karnataka's share by 14.75 TMC, citing Bengaluru's drinking-water needs. It held that drinking water comes first.
• It counted 10 TMC of groundwater available to Tamil Nadu.
• It declared inter-state rivers a national asset: no single state owns one.

• It ordered the Centre to frame a scheme under s.6A.

• Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA), June 2018: the body set up under that scheme to carry out the water sharing.

• The Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) helps it by tracking daily flows and reservoir levels.

• Disputes that continue:

• In distress years (years of poor monsoon rain), protests break out in both states, as in 2016 and 2023.
• Tamil Nadu opposes Karnataka's planned Mekedatu reservoir.

8. Narmada water dispute

• States involved: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan.
• 1979 award: shared the water and fixed the height of the Sardar Sarovar dam in Gujarat.
• Narmada Bachao Andolan: a movement that opposed the dam because people were displaced and not properly resettled. This shows that a tribunal can settle the dispute between states but not the dispute between the state and its people.

9. Ravi-Beas water dispute and the SYL canal

• States involved: Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan.
• How the tribunal came about:
• The Rajiv Gandhi-Longowal Punjab Accord (24 July 1985) promised a tribunal.

• The Eradi Tribunal was set up in 1986.

• Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal: meant to carry Haryana's share of water. Punjab has stopped its construction.

• Punjab's response: the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act 2004 cancelled all of Punjab's water-sharing agreements with other states.
• Presidential reference: the President asked the Supreme Court for its opinion under Art. 143, which lets the President consult the Court.
• In re Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 (10 November 2016): the Court said the Act was unconstitutional. A state cannot cancel inter-state agreements on its own or ignore Supreme Court decrees.
• Status: the SYL canal is still unbuilt (verify current).

10. Inter-state border disputes

• Border dispute: a claim by one state over land held by another. Many border areas speak more than one language.
• NCERT's point: states were redrawn on language lines in 1956. But in areas where many languages are spoken, the language of the majority alone cannot settle who owns the land.
• Belagavi (Belgaum) border dispute:
• Maharashtra claims Belagavi and Marathi-speaking villages in Karnataka.
• The Mahajan Commission (set up in 1966) largely backed Karnataka. Maharashtra rejected its report.

• Maharashtra's Art. 131 original suit (filed in 2004) is pending in the Supreme Court.

• Chandigarh:

• It has been a Union Territory and the shared capital of Punjab and Haryana since the Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966.

• The 1985 Rajiv Gandhi-Longowal understanding promised to give it to Punjab. This was never carried out.

• Assam and its north-eastern neighbours:

• Nagaland, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram were carved out of Assam. This left boundaries that people dispute.
• Assam-Meghalaya: the Chief Ministers signed an agreement on 29 March 2022 in New Delhi, in the presence of the Union Home Minister. It settled 6 of 12 areas of difference, making about 70% of the border dispute-free [7].
• Assam-Arunachal Pradesh:
  • The Namsai Declaration (15 July 2022) narrowed the dispute to 123 villages [8].
  • An MoU (memorandum of understanding, a signed agreement) on 20 April 2023 settled the dispute over those 123 villages. Both states agreed to make no new claims in future [8].
• Assam-Mizoram: a violent clash on 26 July 2021 killed six Assam police personnel.

• Assam-Nagaland: still unresolved. A suit is pending in the Supreme Court.

• Ways to settle border disputes:

• Original suits in the Supreme Court under Art. 131.
• Talks between Chief Ministers, with the Centre (MHA) helping.
• Zonal Councils: advisory bodies set up under the States Reorganisation Act 1956, chaired by the Union Home Minister.
• Inter-State Council (Art. 263): a body for consultation between the Centre and the states.
• Boundary commissions.

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 262: Parliament may keep inter-state water disputes out of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Art. 131: the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over Centre-state and state-state disputes, but it is subject to Art. 262.
• ISRWD Act 1956, s.11: no court can hear a dispute referred to a tribunal. Even so, the Supreme Court heard the Cauvery appeals under Art. 136.
• 2002 amendment to the ISRWD Act: tribunal within 1 year of the request; award in 3 + 2 years; a published award has the force of a Supreme Court decree.
• River Boards Act 1956: allows advisory boards. No board has ever been set up.
• 2019 Bill: one permanent tribunal; DRC with 1 + ½ years; award in 2 + 1 years [2][3]. Trap: it was passed only by the Lok Sabha.
• Cauvery 2018: Tamil Nadu 419 → 404.25 TMC; Karnataka 270 → 284.75 TMC. Kerala (30) and Puducherry (7) unchanged. River declared a "national asset". CWMA and CWRC set up in 2018.
• Mullaperiyar was settled by the Supreme Court, not by a tribunal. TN v. Kerala (2014) struck down Kerala's 2006 law; the 142-foot level was upheld.
• Eradi Tribunal: the Ravi-Beas tribunal (1986), which came out of the 1985 Punjab Accord. In re Punjab Termination of Agreements Act (2016) was an advisory opinion under Art. 143.
• Mahanadi Tribunal: Odisha v. Chhattisgarh (2018) [5]. Vansadhara: Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. Mahadayi: Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
• Assam-Meghalaya (2022): 6 of 12 areas settled [7]. Assam-Arunachal (2023): 123 villages [8]. Mahajan Commission: Belgaum.

Mains Points

• Adjudication vs negotiation: tribunals take decades (Cauvery took 17 years, from 1990 to 2007). Their awards are often ignored, as Punjab did with SYL, or reopened through appeals. Water and land are political issues, so a lasting settlement needs political agreement and the Centre's help, not just a court order. The DRC idea in the 2019 Bill builds this in [2].
• Institutional reform: a permanent tribunal with fixed deadlines, a river-basin data bank and a DRC would make the process quicker and more open [2][3]. Unused tools remain: the River Boards Act, the Inter-State Council (Art. 263) and Zonal Councils. Basin-level bodies such as CWMA show what working implementation looks like.
• Federal principle: the Supreme Court has held that rivers are a national asset with drinking water first (2018), and that a state cannot cancel inter-state agreements on its own (2016). Together these limit "state ownership" of water and support cooperative federalism.
• Border disputes and linguistic states: language-based reorganisation (1956) left multilingual border areas such as Belagavi and the North-East. Agreements brokered by the Centre in the North-East (2022, 2023) show that settling one area at a time through give-and-take works better than long cases under Art. 131 [7][8].