Q.25 Constitutional mechanisms to resolve the inter-state water disputes have failed to address and solve the problems. Is the failure due to structural or process inadequacy or both? Discuss. GS-II: POLITY (UPSC CSE 2013)

Answer:

THE INTRODUCTION:

Inter-state water disputes in India are governed by Article 262 of the Constitution, which allows Parliament to legislate on the adjudication of disputes related to the use, distribution, and control of inter-state river waters. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (ISRWD) Act, 1956, was enacted to provide a legal framework for resolving such disputes. Despite these provisions, the mechanisms in place have often been criticized for their inefficiency and ineffectiveness.

THE BODY:

Structural Inadequacies

• • Lack of Permanent Institutions: There is no permanent body to oversee and manage inter-state water disputes continuously. The absence of a permanent tribunal or commission means that each new dispute requires the establishment of a new tribunal, leading to delays and inefficiencies.
  • Inadequate Data Management: There is no central repository of water data that is acceptable to all parties involved. This lack of reliable and shared data makes it difficult to establish baselines and assess claims accurately.
  • Overlapping Jurisdiction and Ambiguities: Water is listed under Entry 17 of the State List, subject to Entry 56 of the Union List concerning inter-state rivers. This overlap creates ambiguities in legislative competence and responsibility. In the State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000), the Supreme Court highlighted the complexities arising from these overlapping entries.
  • Ineffectiveness of Ad-hoc Tribunals: Tribunals are dissolved after giving their awards, leading to loss of institutional memory and expertise. Tribunal awards often lack binding force. For instance, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s award faced implementation challenges due to states’ non-compliance.
  • No Time-bound Resolution: The ISRWD Act initially did not prescribe a time limit for tribunals to give awards, leading to prolonged disputes. The Ravi-Beas Tribunal, constituted in 1986, remains unresolved.

Process Inadequacies

• • Protracted Proceedings: The process of dispute resolution is often lengthy and marked by significant delays. For instance, the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal took several decades to deliver its final verdict.
  • Enforcement Issues: Even when tribunals deliver verdicts, enforcing these decisions is problematic. States often defy tribunal awards, and there is no effective mechanism to ensure For example, Punjab’s rejection of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal construction despite the Supreme Court’s directive.
  • Political Interference: Water disputes are highly politicized, with states using them as tools for political gain. This politicization leads to extended litigations and subversion of resolution mechanisms.
  • Absence of Quick Remedies: Affected states and populations suffer due to the absence of mechanisms for interim relief during prolonged adjudication.
  • Lack of Multidisciplinary Approach: The composition of tribunals is typically limited to legal experts, without adequate representation from other relevant fields such as hydrology, environmental science, and agriculture. This limits the tribunal’s ability to address the technical complexities of water disputes.

Case studies illustrating failures:

• • Cauvery Water Dispute: Despite the tribunal’s award in 2007 and the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2018, tensions and non-compliance issues persist.
  • Godavari Water Dispute: The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal took over a decade to deliver its award, and the implementation faced significant delays due to political and administrative hurdles.
  • Mahadayi River Dispute (Goa vs. Karnataka vs. Maharashtra): The tribunal took over 16 years to deliver its award, which is still contested.
  • Satluj-Yamuna Link Canal Dispute: Punjab’s legislative actions to nullify agreements led to legal confrontations, highlighting structural inadequacies.

PURPOSED SOLUTIONS

• • Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008): Recommended the establishment of a permanent tribunal with appellate jurisdiction to ensure continuity and expertise.
  • Mihir Shah Committee (2016): Suggested restructuring water governance with an integrated approach, emphasizing data management and participatory processes.

Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019:

• • Permanent Tribunal Proposal: Aims to establish a single, permanent tribunal with multiple benches for faster resolution.
  • Time-bound Adjudication: Proposes a maximum of three years for dispute resolution.
  • Data Repository: Suggests an agency to maintain a comprehensive database, enhancing transparency.

THE CONCLUSION:

Strengthening the legal framework to ensure the enforceability of tribunal awards and holding states accountable for non-compliance is important. Establishing institutional arrangements for proactive conflict prevention, negotiation, and mediation can help address disputes early, preventing escalation. Establishing permanent tribunals, better data management, and fostering cooperative federalism, is essential for effectively and timely resolving water disputes.