UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — Karnataka signals intent to review Cauvery allocation citing Indus Waters Treaty

Q1. With reference to the adjudication of inter-State river water disputes in India, consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. Under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, the decision of a tribunal has the same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court.
  2. A water disputes tribunal is constituted by the Supreme Court on a reference made to it by the Central Government.
  3. The statutory bar on the jurisdiction of courts did not prevent the Supreme Court from entertaining appeals against the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.
  • A. 1, 2 and 3
  • B. 2 and 3 only
  • C. 1 only
  • D. 1 and 3 only

Q2. Consider the following statements: Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

  1. Any challenge to the Cauvery water allocation now in force is, in substance, a challenge to a judgment of the Supreme Court and not merely to a tribunal award.
  2. Article 262 of the Constitution enables Parliament to provide by law that the Supreme Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over disputes relating to inter-State river waters.
  • A. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
  • B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
  • C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
  • D. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct

Q3. With reference to the doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus) as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above are correct?

  1. The change must not have been foreseen by the parties when the treaty was concluded.
  2. The circumstances that changed must have formed an essential basis of the parties' consent to be bound.
  3. A party may invoke the change even where it results from that party's own breach of its treaty obligations.
  4. The change must radically transform the extent of the obligations still to be performed under the treaty.
  • A. 2, 3 and 4 only
  • B. 1, 2 and 4 only
  • C. 1 and 2 only
  • D. 1, 2, 3 and 4

Q4. Two neighbouring States conclude two separate treaties: Treaty X fixes their common land boundary, and Treaty Y shares the waters of a river flowing between them. Decades later, an unforeseen climatic shift radically changes the river's flow. That flow was an essential basis of both parties' consent. Applying the rule on fundamental change of circumstances under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which one of the following is correct?

  • A. The change may be invoked against Treaty Y but cannot be invoked to terminate Treaty X.
  • B. The change may be invoked against both Treaty X and Treaty Y, as both depend on the river.
  • C. The change may be invoked against Treaty X only, since boundaries depend on the river course.
  • D. The change cannot be invoked against either treaty, since river-related treaties are excluded.

Q5. With reference to the institutional design of the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960, consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. The World Bank is itself a signatory to the treaty, besides India and Pakistan.
  2. The Permanent Indus Commission, which has one Commissioner from each country, deals with 'questions' arising under the treaty.
  3. Matters classified as 'differences' go to a Neutral Expert, while those classified as 'disputes' go to a Court of Arbitration.
  • A. 2 and 3 only
  • B. 1 and 3 only
  • C. 1, 2 and 3
  • D. 1 only

Q6. Consider the following statements: Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

  1. Under the Indus Waters Treaty, India has developed hydroelectric projects in the Jhelum and Chenab basins even though the treaty does not allocate these rivers to India.
  2. While allocating the Western rivers to Pakistan and the Eastern rivers to India, the Indus Waters Treaty allows each country certain uses on the rivers allocated to the other.
  • A. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
  • B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
  • C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
  • D. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct

Q7. With reference to India's actions concerning the Indus Waters Treaty, consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. India's notices of January 2023 and August 2024 were notices terminating the treaty.
  2. Holding a treaty in abeyance leaves the treaty in existence, so its provisions can resume operation without a fresh treaty having to be concluded.
  3. India's decision of April 2025 was declared to last until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism.
  • A. 1 and 2 only
  • B. 2 and 3 only
  • C. 1, 2 and 3
  • D. 3 only

Q8. With reference to the bodies associated with the Cauvery water allocation, consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. The Cauvery Water Management Authority was constituted to give effect to the tribunal's decision as modified by the Supreme Court, not to decide a fresh allocation.
  2. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, having given its award, now supervises the day-to-day regulation of releases by the implementing bodies.
  3. The Cauvery Water Management Authority was created directly by the Supreme Court's judgment, without any notification by the Central Government.
  • A. 1 and 2 only
  • B. 1, 2 and 3
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1 only