The Inter-State River Water Disputes are one of the most contentious issues in the Indian federalism today. Various Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunals have been constituted so far, but they had their own problems.

Arrangements to settle Inter-State Water Disputes

1.    Constitutional Arrangements

Schedule 7 of the Constitution: It distinguishes between the use of water within a State and the purpose of regulating interstate waters. Union List: Entry 56, It gives the Union Parliament the power to formulate laws and mechanisms for regulating Interstate rivers. State List: Entry 17, States retain autonomy regarding water utilisation for purposes such as water supply, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power subject to provisions of Entry 56 of List 1 (Union List).

Article 262: In case of disputes relating to waters, Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State rivers. Parliament may, by law also provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as mentioned

2.    Statutory Arrangements

River Board Act, 1956: The river Boards are supposed to advise on the Inter-state basin to prepare development scheme and to prevent the emergence of conflicts. Till date, no River Board has been created.

Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956: If a particular State or States approach the Union Government for the constitution of the tribunal: (a) Central Government should try to resolve the matter by consultation among the aggrieved States; (b) In case, consultation does not work, then the Union Government may constitute the tribunal.

Reasons for persistence of Inter-State Water Disputes

1. First, the legislative powers concerning water have been distributed between the Union and the State Governments. The idea has been to ensure optimum utilisation while balancing the interests of the States. However, this approach of imprecise distribution of power between the Union and the States, has created a Federal-Jurisdictional ambiguity.
2. Second, a big limiting factor is the lack of effective authority for enforcing the orders of tribunals. The Tribunal can only make an award and cannot make it binding. The Tribunals also lack the ability to punish for ‘contempt’.
3. Third, Article 262 provides that the Parliament may by law prevent the Supreme Court or any other Court from exercising jurisdiction in inter-State water disputes. However, under Article 136, the Supreme Court can hear appeals against the orders of Tribunals. Thus, the Supreme Court remains the adjudicatory body along with the tribunals, creating an institutional ambiguity regarding which body is the ultimate adjudicatory power on inter-State water disputes in India.
4. Fourth, critics of the system argue that the members of tribunals created for adjudicating the inter-State water disputes have been predominantly from the Judiciary. This has lead to lack of a multi-disciplinary approach to dispute settlement. They say there is not much difference between the tribunal and the bench of the Supreme Court.
5. Fifth, There have been excessive delays in establishing tribunals and making awards. The right to have a dispute referred to a tribunal under the IWSDA (Inter-State Water Dispute Act) is contingent on the Union Government’s determination that the matter cannot be resolved through negotiations. The provision of negotiations inevitably delays the constitution of a tribunal.
6. Sixth, Given that agriculture constitutes the primary economic activity in many parts of the country, water is a contentious issue. Inter-State disputes are exploited for political mobilization and electoral benefits. State Governments have rejected the awards of Tribunals.
7. Seventh, There is a lack of data regarding water flows, seasonal variations etc. which results in ambiguities regarding availability of water, surplus water for sharing etc. In addition, seasonal variations in monsoonal rainfall sometimes create shortage of water. State Governments than argue that there is no surplus water to be shared.

Towards settling Inter-State Water Disputes

1. First, The Sarkaria Commission has suggested that the awards of the tribunals be given the same weight as a Supreme Court Judgment.
2. Second, The Government’s inability to properly handle water-related disputes is reflected in the high number of appeals to the Supreme Court. Some experts suggest that the appeal to the Supreme Court should only on procedural aspects. The awards based on expert opinions shouldn’t be questioned in the Court.
3. Third, there is a need to establish a time frame for constituting the Tribunal by the Union Government. Tribunals should also try to avoid unnecessary delays in giving the award.
4. Fourth, the Inter-State Council can be rejuvenated to enable it to play a more active role in settlement of such disputes.
5. Fifth, Some experts have suggested that mediation, (a third party acts as an intermediary between the parties in conflict), can also be explored as a possible option for successful resolution of disputes. Example of role of the World Bank as a mediator in the Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan is quoted as a success of this model.
6. Sixth, infrastructure should be created for better collection of the data related to inter-State river basins. Better data will provide clear picture regarding availability of waters, seasonal variations and help in the equitable distribution of water among the States.

The Inter-State Water Disputes have been allowed to linger on for a long time. The politics of electoral mobilization has been one of the major factor, along with institutional infirmities in the arrangements. The Union and State Governments should put national interest above narrow parochial interests. As the pressures of climate change become evident through water stress in various regions, it becomes imperative that such disputes are settled in order to ensure optimal use of nation’s water resources.