TAG: GS 2: POLITY
THE CONTEXT: The Delhi government recently approached the Supreme Court seeking urgent directives to Haryana and Himachal Pradesh for the release of additional water into the National Capital Territory (NCT) region.
EXPLANATION:
- This plea comes amid an unprecedented surge in temperatures and a consequent spike in water demand, exacerbating the city’s ongoing water crisis.
- This is not the first time Delhi has sought judicial intervention to resolve its water issues.
Reasons for the Current Petition
- Despite various measures, the Delhi government has been unable to adequately address the water shortage, leading to a full-fledged water and sanitation crisis.
- This necessitated the recent urgent plea to the Supreme Court.
- The Delhi government claimed that Himachal Pradesh had agreed to share its surplus water.
- However, the water needs to be transported through the Wazirabad barrage, requiring cooperation from the Haryana government, which has not been forthcoming.
- The government pointed out that water levels at the Sonia Vihar and Bhagirathi barrages, which are primary sources for Delhi-NCR, are already at full capacity.
- Thus, any increase in water supply can only be considered at the Wazirabad barrage.
- The Delhi government emphasized the necessity of additional water supply due to the large workforce and migrant population in Delhi-NCR.
- It sought this relief as a temporary measure until the arrival of the monsoon season.
Historical Legal Interventions
- 1995 Interim Order:
- On March 31, 1995, the Supreme Court passed an interim order on a plea by Commodore S D Sinha, directing Haryana to maintain a regular flow of water in the Yamuna River to address the drinking water shortage in Delhi.
- The order mandated all parties to ensure sufficient water release from Tajewala Head so that Delhi receives 0.076 BCM for consumption from March to June 1995.
- Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) 1994:
- The MoU, signed on May 12, 1994, by the Chief Ministers of five basin states (Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh), allocated Yamuna water among the co-basin states.
- It prioritized Delhi’s drinking water needs, especially when water availability was below the assessed quantity.
- 1996 Supreme Court Ruling:
- On February 29, 1996, the Supreme Court, disposing of contempt pleas, ruled that Haryana must continue supplying sufficient water for domestic use to Delhi.
- It emphasized that the reservoirs at Wazirabad and Hyderpur should remain full.
- The court directed Haryana not to obstruct this supply and made it clear that any violation would result in serious consequences.
Subsequent Developments and Disputes
- Contempt Petitions Post-1995 Ruling:
- Following the 1995 interim order, two contempt petitions were filed by Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking and Commodore Sinha, alleging willful violation of the court’s directives by Haryana.
- DJB’s 2021 Petition:
- In 2021, the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) filed a petition alleging that the Haryana government was not releasing 120 million gallons of water per day, causing a water crisis in Delhi.
- Haryana countered by claiming that Delhi’s water issues were due to internal mismanagement.
- Supreme Court’s 2021 Dismissal:
- On July 23, 2021, the Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions filed by the DJB.
- The court noted significant infrastructural developments since the 1996 order, including the establishment of new water treatment plants at Bawana, Dwarka, and Okhla.
- The court concluded that the 1996 order was an interim measure and not applicable under the changed circumstances.
- It cautioned the Delhi government against filing repetitive petitions for similar reliefs that had previously been rejected.
Constitutional provisions
- As water comes under state list. According to Entry 17 of State List, states can legislate with respect to rivers.
- However, Entry 56 of the Union List gives the Central government the power to regulate and develop inter-state rivers and river valleys.
- Article 262 empowers Parliament to 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 river or river valley.
- As per Article 262, the Parliament has enacted the following:
- River Board Act, 1956: This empowered the GOI to establish Boards for Interstate Rivers and river valleys in consultation with State Governments. Till date, no river board has been created.
- Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956: Under this act, if a state government or governments approach the Centre for the constitution of a tribunal, the government may form a tribunal after trying to resolve the dispute through consultations.
Features of River Boards Act 1956
- It provides for the establishment of River Boards, for the regulationand development of inter-State rivers and river valleys.
- Central Government may establish a Board on a request received from a State Government or otherwise for “advising the Government interested” in relation to such matters concerningthe regulation or development of an inter-State river or river valley (or any specified part) as maybe notified by the Central Government.
- Different Boards may be established for different inter-State rivers or river valleys.
- The Board is to consist of the Chairman and such other members as the Central Governmentthinks fit to appoint. They must be persons having special knowledge and experience in irrigation,electrical engineering, flood control, navigation, water conservation, soil conservation,administration or finance.
- Functions of the Board are set out in detail in section 13 of the Act as covering conservation of the water resources of the inter-State river, schemes for irrigationand drainage, development of hydro-electric power, schemes for flood control, promotion ofnavigation, control of soil erosion and prevention of pollution.
- But the functions of the Board are advisory and not adjudicatory.
- By section 14(3), the Board is directed to consult all the Governments concerned and to securetheir agreement, as far as possible.
Features of Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956
- A State Government which has a water dispute with another State Government may request theCentral Government to refer the dispute to a tribunal for adjudication.
- The Central Government, if it is of opinion that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, shallrefer the dispute to a Tribunal.
- The Tribunal’s composition is laid down in the Act. It consists of a Chairman and two other members, nominated by the Chief Justice of India from among persons who, at the time of such nomination, are Judges of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal can appoint assessors to advise it in the proceedings before it.
- On the reference being made by the Central Government, the Tribunal investigates the matterand makes its report, embodying its decision. The decision is to be published and is to be finaland binding on the parties.
- Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts in respect of the dispute referred to the Tribunal is barred.
- The Central Government may frame a scheme, providing for all matters necessary to give effectto the decision of the Tribunal. The scheme may, inter alia, provide for establishing an authorityfor implementing (section 6A).
Yamuna river:
- The Yamuna River is one of the major tributaries of the Ganges in Northern India.
- It forms an integral part of the Yamuna-Ganga Plain, one of the world’s most extensive alluvial plains.
- It has its source in the Yamunotri Glacier at an elevation of 6,387 meters on the southwestern sides of Banderpooch crests in the lower Himalayan ranges.
- It meets the Ganges at the Sangam (where Kumbh mela is held) in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh after flowing through Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi.
SOURCE: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/delhi-supreme-court-water-dispute-9365728/
Spread the Word