Inter-State Water Disputes

Context:

The Supreme Court has found that the Union government is yet to grant ‘in-principle approval’ to the Cauvery-South Vellar Link project four years after Tamil Nadu sought clearance from the Jal Shakti Ministry. 

The Cauvery-South Vellar Link Project Legal and Political Controversies

• Introduction
  • The Cauvery South Vellar Link project became a hotly debated issue in India marking it with judicial litigation and political flares between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Initiated by Tamil Nadu in January 2021 the project is yet to gain inprinciple approval from the Union government and there has been disagreement among states on water rights and the use of resources.

Background of the Project

• Objective
  • The project proposes diversion of excess water from Mettur dam in Tamil Nadu, for the recharging of dry tanks in the Sarabanga basin of Salem district of Tamil Nadu.
• Cost Estimation
  • The cost estimate of the project is 565 crore
• Karnatakas Plea
  • Karnataka says that such diversion would jeopardize its water resources and the communitys rights along the Cauvery river.
• Historical Background
  • The Cauvery river has been a longstanding source of interstate disputes in India with contentious water sharing agreements and court rulings.
• Tensions Today
  • The project is part of the larger concerns associated with water rights resource management and the way regional government goes about its operations.
• Environmental Perspectives
  • Local ecosystem and farm management may suffer when water supply is diverted for such purposes.
• Sustainability
  • There should be sustainable water management practices balancing development with environmental preservation.

Legal Argument of Karnataka

• Supreme Court Filing
  • Karnataka has filed a case in the Supreme Court against Tamil Nadu seeking to prevent the latter from continuing with the project. The state bases its arguments on the 2007 Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal ruling and the 2018 Supreme Court judgment which it argues Tamil Nadu has violated.
• Cooperative Federalism
  • Karnataka takes the argument that Tamil Nadu by starting the project is flouting constitutional conventions and federalism principles.

Inter-State Water Disputes

The water happens to be in the State List of the Indian Constitution. The State List is List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

• Explanation
  • The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India divides power between the Union and State governments.
  • The State List entails subjects which the State legislatures alone are enabled to provide in their regulations.
  • The Union List consists of subjects that can be legislated only by the Union Parliament.
  • The Concurrent List comprises subjects that can be legislated upon by both the Union Parliament and the State Legislatures.

Constitutional Provisions

Inter-state water disputes in India are addressed in the Indian Constitution’s Article 262 and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956. 

• Article 262
  • This article of the Constitution gives the Parliament the power to resolve disputes over the use, distribution, or control of inter-state rivers. 
• State and Union Lists
  • Entry 17 of State List
    • It comprises water related matters such as water supply, irrigation canal systems, drainage, embankments, water storage and water power.
• Entry 56 of Union List
  • Gives the Union Government the power to regulate and develop inter-state rivers and river valleys in the public interest declared by Parliament.
• Article 262 of the Constitution
  • Adjudication of Disputes
    • Parliament may make laws for the adjudication of any dispute or question touching such use distribution or control.
  • Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Court
    • Parliament has a power under it to wholly exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or of other Courts in any suit or proceedings.

Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956

It is one whose purpose serves the water dispute within the States.

• Provision
  • If a State requests intervention over a water dispute and the Central Government feels the issue cannot be resolved through negotiations a Water Disputes Tribunal is formed 2002.
• Amendments Recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission
  • The Sarkaria Commission recommended the establishment of a permanent Inter-State Council to resolve disputes between states. 

Inter-State River Water Disputes Amendment Bill 2017

• Objectives
  • Streamlining adjudication of interstate river water disputes by amending the ISRWD Act 1956.

Major Provisions

• Standalone Tribunal
  • Establishes a permanent tribunal with dedicated infrastructure to avoid setting up a new tribunal for each dispute.
• Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC)
  • A committee formed by the Central Government to amicably resolve any dispute within one year and six months. If DRC fails to resolve the dispute then it is directed to the tribunal Tribunal Bench System.
  • The chairperson of the tribunal assigns a bench to the referred disputes Decisions are Binding.

Decisions by the benches of the Tribunal are final and binding on the parties

• Publication Requirement
  • Publication of decisions of Tribunals not required through official gazettes.
• Data Management
  • Data collection transparently at National Level for Each River Basin by Establishing.
  • One agency responsible for a data bank and an information system.

Issues with Inter-State Water Dispute Tribunals

• Delayed Proceedings and Injustice
  • Most disputes extend to a long period, denying justice. Recent examples in India include the Godavari Water Dispute and the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.
• Opacity in Institutional Framework
  • Tribunal procedures and compliance mechanisms are obscure, and states can challenge them in the Supreme Court.
• Undersized Composition of Tribunals
  • The tribunals are essentially made up of members from the judiciary, which makes for an unsatisfactory and incomplete resolution of disputes.
• Lack of Reliable Water Data
  • The baseline is not established due to unreliable water data. Tribunals are adversarial and tend to prolong litigations and politicize the disputes. States politicize awards for political benefits with prolonged delays in resolution.
• Defiance and Non-Compliance by States
  • Defiance of tribunal awards is increasing and weakening the basic mechanisms of resolution.
• Excessive Discretion in Decision-Making
  • Procedural complexities and multiple stakeholders‘ involvement lead to inefficiency and delays.
• Complex Federal Structure and Colonial Legacy
  • India’s federal system creates competing interests over shared water resources, complicating modern dispute resolution efforts.
• Implications
  • Delayed justice, politics, and system inefficiencies hinder sustainable and cooperative water-sharing agreements.

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Question (PYQ)

Mains

Q. Constitutional mechanisms to resolve the inter-state water disputes have failed to address and solve the problems. Is the failure due to structura