INTER-STATE WATER DISPUTES IN INDIA

Federal India is a political system where the States and the Central govt. have their respective
spheres of governance mentioned in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. Though the makers of
our Constitution have never used the world Federal in the Constitution itself, the system of
polity was designed in the way that it cannot said to be anything but Federal.

The Federal India has 29 States and 7 Union Territories today. These are political units which are
formed from time to time in the countrythe recent one being Telangana. The Water and the
rivers, ignorant of these Political units flow in one and often in more than one State or Union
Territory. Notable among them are big rivers like Ganga which flows from Uttarakhand to West
Bengal before entering into Bangladesh, Narmada flowing from Madhya Pradesh to Gulf of
Cambay in Gujarat, Ravi, Beas and Satluj which flow both in Himachal Pradesh and Punjab
among others. Being in the Monsoon-dependent country where a democracy prevails, the rivers
have been the subject of Disputes between States.

DISPUTES AMONG STATES:

Water is a precious resource which is essential for the sustenance of life on Earth. Indian cities,
in the ancient period have been set on the banks of the rivers and the India Culture that
developed places rivers as sacrosanctoften comparing them with Mothers and Goddesses like
Godavari.

The significance of rivers and the sentiments of people attached with these rivers have made the
water disputes to be a lingering issue in Independent India. Conscious of the arrival of such
issues in future, the fathers of our Constitution have made an arrangement of their solution by
adding Article 262 to our Constitution which provides for an Inter-State Water Tribunal. This
tribunal has been successful in resolving several Water related disputes like that of Narmada
River Water Dispute. There however exists some other disputes for which the States had to resort
to the Supreme Court and have had been the bone of contention between two States.

One such issue is the building of Dams on a river. Building a dam is not always connected with
the flow of water as is the popular belief but does also involve a lot many other complex
problems. One such problem is the displacement of people and another is the loss to the
environment.

The building of a dam require large tracts of land to be submerged under the water. The apparent
submergence of land requires people living in those areas to move to other places. The dismal
record of states to rehabilitate and resettle these displaced people forces them to move to areas
with better employment prospects. Several such people move to other states and change the
ethnic and demographic profile of that state. It leads to ethnic clashes in the state where
displaced people migratedgiving political parties new issues for their sustenanceand making
the other states more vocal against the Water related policies of other states. The loss to the
environment is another fallout of a Dam which makes the riparian state to protest and the dispute
that follows finds its way to the ISWT or the Supreme Court sooner than latter.

The recent Yamuna-Satluj Link Canal dispute between Punjab and Haryana, when elections are
near in Punjab and Cauvery-River Water Dispute between Karnataka and Tamilnadu when
election are close in Karnataka can both be seen from the prism of politics based on genuine
problems of the people. Recently, the Inter-State Water flows have been tempered with for
lodging the protests by some communities. Jats barring the flow of water to Delhi is a case in
point.

NOT SO EVERGREEN:

There is a bad news for people using Water disputes for their advantages that the Water disputes
between the States are increasingly being solved and this makes the future of such politics and
protest not so bright. The evidence of it can be seen in the creation of a permanent Inter-State
Water Tribunal by the Central govt. The Cauvery Management Board is working on solving the
current dispute between the two South Indian neighbours. The govt. recently has given a go-
ahead to the Ken-Betwa Interstate Water Project which heralds a new era in the peaceful use of
the river waters. The Polavaram project recently started in Andhra Pradesh is another project that
has its reservoirs in Chattisgarh and Odisha states. It enables the people of these two states to go
for fishing, recreation and others.

The clever Indian Politicians, who use the differences over water gaining votes in election, find it
difficult to continue with their tactics with the inter-linking of rivers which assure the constant
flow of water for the people. An icing on the cake for the people on this is the National
Waterways Act passed by the Parliament recently. It provides for the creation of101 National
Waterways for transportation of Cargo and the people. For the waterways to sustain, there will be
an extensive deepening, widening, dredging of rivers and that too by the Union govt. which
would not only ensure a good amount of water in the rivers but also more movement of people
through waterways and establishing of more people to people contacts which would increase the
cooperation among states.

WATER DISPUTESA LASTING SOLUTION

The Centre has decided to set up a single, permanent Tribunal to adjudicate all inter-state river
water disputes subsuming existing tribunals, a step which is aimed at resolving grievances of
states in a speedy manner. Besides the Tribunal, the government has also proposed to float some
benches by amending the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 to look into disputes as and when
required. Unlike the Tribunal, the benches will cease to exist once the disputes are resolved.
Key facts:
The proposed amendment to the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act of 1956 talks of
benches under the permanent tribunal that will look into specific disputes.
It also provides for setting up of a dispute resolution committee, comprising experts and
policy-makers, every time a clash crops upthe committee must try and resolve river-water
sharing fights before these are taken to the tribunal.
The plan to put a 3-year deadline for delivering a verdict is also appealing given how
long disputes last.
In order to give more teeth to the Tribunal, it is proposed that whenever it gives order, the
verdict gets notified automatically. Until now, the government required to notify the awards,
causing delay in its implementation.

How are disputes adjudicated presently?

As per the current provisions of the 1956 Act, a tribunal can be formed after a state government
approaches Union Government with such request and the Centre is convinced of the need to
form the tribunal.
Eight such tribunals exist now. After they have heard the matter and awarded their
decisions, the tribunals are allowed to collapse.
This system has had some successes, especially with the first generation of tribunals set
up soon after independenceto adjudicate on the Krishna, Narmada and Godavari rivers.

Problems with the present system:

The present system has struggled to bring warring parties on the same page and offer
equitable solutions.
It has led to protracted proceedings and extreme delays in dispute resolution. Under the
present system, the Centre takes years to decide whether a matter needs to be heard by a
tribunal in the first place. Also, after the tribunal has been formed, it again takes many years
to pronounce its award.
Another reason for delay is the requirement that the Centre notify the order of the tribunal
to bring it into effect.
Opacity in the institutional framework and guidelines that define these proceedings have
also added to the problem. Besides, ensuring compliance is another problem.
The absence of authoritative water data that is acceptable to all parties also makes it
difficult to even set up a baseline for adjudication.
Besides, Indias messy federal polity and its colonial legacy have set the stage for n-
compliance wherein state governments have sometimes rejected tribunal awards. For
example, the Punjab government played truant in the case of the Ravi-Beas tribunal. It
should be noted here that water is a state subject but the regulation and development of
inter-state rivers and river valleys in the public interest is on the Union list.
 The courts have also often been ignored, including the Supreme Court, which importantly
only has very limited jurisdiction over the tribunals, as per the Inter-State River Water
Disputes Act of 1956. This has its roots in the Government of India Act, 1935 which
mandated separate tribunals and limited the jurisdiction of the federal court.

Whats good about the proposed permanent tribunal:

Since water-sharing disputes are only going to rise, and the existing mechanisms of setting up
tribunals for each case are clearly not working, the governments plan to set up a permanent,
over-arching tribunal to adjudicate all such fights looks appealing.
There will be an expert agency to collect data on rainfall, irrigation and surface water flows. This
acquires importance because party-States have a tendency to fiercely question data provided by
the other side. A permanent forum having reliable data in its hands sounds like an ideal
mechanism to apportion water.

Challenges before the tribunal:

The Cabinets proposal to have a permanent tribunal that will subsume existing tribunals is
expected to provide for speedier adjudication. But whether this will resolve the problem of
protracted proceedings is doubtful. Given the number of ongoing inter-State disputes and those
likely to arise in future, it may be difficult for a single institution with a former Supreme Court
judge as its chairperson to give its ruling within three years. Secondly, its interlocutory orders as
well as final award are likely to be challenged in the Supreme Court.
The idea of a Dispute Resolution Committee, an expert body that will seek to resolve inter-State
differences before a tribunal is approached, may also prove to be another disincentive for
needless litigation.

Why is the new move being criticized?

According to few experts, the Centres efforts to set up a single, permanent tribunal to adjudicate
inter-state water disputes will undermine the principles of federalism and will make things more
complicated instead of resolving them. It is because Centralized tribunal would not yield the
desired results and would only further delay the implementation of final awards of existing
tribunals.
Water management experts say this could cause long legal battles. It may also result in an
enormous legal battle.

Way ahead:
Today, inter-state water disputes are no longer just about water allocation. They have become
hugely politicizedthe recent eruption of the Cauvery dispute, framed as an ethnic identity issue
between Tamilians and Kannadigas, which led to widespread civil unrest, is only the most recent
example. Public opinion is an important factor that cannot be wished away. The Central
government must keep these factors in mind when setting up the proposed tribunal. A robust
institutional frameworkand a transparent one to ease state and public buy-inis a must.
Without that cooperative approach, Indias water dispute resolution is unlikely to see much
improvement.
Also, water disputes have humanitarian dimensions, including agrarian problems worsened by
drought and monsoon failures. Adjudication, by whatever mechanism, should not be at the mercy
of partisan leaders who turn claims into dangerously emotive issues. Institutional mechanisms
should be backed by the political will to make them work.

Conclusion:
The Centres proposal to set up a single, permanent tribunal, subsuming all existing ad hoc
tribunals, to adjudicate on inter-state river water disputes could be a major step towards
streamlining the dispute redressal mechanism. But it alone will not be able to address the
different kinds of problemslegal, administrative, constitutional and politicalthat plague the
overall framework. A comprehensive policy and relook is the need of the hour.