Model Answer

Introduction

The Attorney General of India plays a vital role as the principal legal advisor to the Government of India, offering legal counsel and representing the government in significant constitutional matters. This position is enshrined in Article 76 of the Indian Constitution and carries important constitutional responsibilities.

Role of the Attorney General as Legal Advisor

1. Constitutional Foundation:
   • Article 76 of the Indian Constitution establishes the Attorney General’s office, outlining his role as the primary legal advisor to the government.
   • Example: The Attorney General’s opinion is sought while drafting and formulating key legal bills and policies, ensuring their compliance with the Constitution.
2. Legal Representation:
   • The Attorney General represents the Government of India in the Supreme Court of India, especially in cases where government actions or laws are challenged.
   • Example: In cases like the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Attorney General represents the government’s stance in constitutional challenges.
3. Advisory Role in Constitutional Matters:
   • The Attorney General offers legal advice to the President, Cabinet, and government departments on constitutional issues.
   • Example: The Attorney General often advises on the constitutional validity of executive decisions, such as emergency proclamations or new laws.
4. Drafting of Legislation:
   • Assists in drafting government bills and ordinances, ensuring they do not violate constitutional principles.
   • Example: Reviewing bills before they are introduced in Parliament, such as examining the legality of ordinances issued by the President.
5. Upholding Constitutional Principles:
   • The Attorney General ensures that the government’s actions are in compliance with constitutional provisions.
   • Example: Advising against actions that could potentially infringe on citizens’ fundamental rights or violate the separation of powers.
6. Parliamentary Involvement:
   • The Attorney General can participate in parliamentary debates and discussions but cannot vote.
   • Example: Providing legal clarifications and interpretations during parliamentary discussions on important bills.

Conclusion

The Attorney General holds a crucial role in upholding the Constitution, advising the government on legal matters, and representing it in key legal and constitutional cases. As legal challenges evolve, the Attorney General’s guidance remains vital in ensuring governance is aligned with constitutional principles.

Model Answer

Introduction

Inter-state water disputes have long been a source of tension in India, affecting national unity and development. Despite constitutional mechanisms like Article 262 and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, these provisions have not effectively resolved disputes over shared water resources.

Constitutional Mechanisms for Resolving Water Disputes:

1. Article 262: This article grants Parliament the authority to establish tribunals for resolving inter-state water disputes related to rivers and river valleys.
2. Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956: This law provides the framework for setting up tribunals, defining their powers and procedures, and outlining the principles of water allocation.
3. Entry 56 of the Union List: This entry allows the Union Government to regulate and develop inter-state rivers, provided Parliament deems it in the public interest.

Reasons for Ineffectiveness

1. Complexity of Disputes: Water disputes involve complex scientific data, including hydrology and environmental concerns, making negotiations challenging.
2. Diverse Stakeholders: Different groups such as farmers, industries, and environmentalists have conflicting interests, complicating consensus-building.
   • Example: The Cauvery water dispute involves four states—Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, and Puducherry—each with differing water needs and political interests.
3. Politicization of Water: Water issues are often exploited for political gain, with short-term political motives overshadowing long-term solutions.
4. Absence of River Boards: Despite legislative provisions, no river boards have been created, leading to fragmented and unsustainable water management practices.
5. Judicial Interventions: Frequent Supreme Court interventions in ongoing disputes, like the Cauvery case, have led to delays and confusion, preventing long-term resolutions.

Proposed Solutions

1. Promote Dialogue and Cooperation: Establish River Basin boards and joint management authorities to encourage collaborative decision-making and dispute resolution.
2. Develop a National Water Information System: Create a transparent system to collect and share water resource data, facilitating informed decision-making.
3. Judicial Restraint: Encourage the judiciary to exercise restraint and respect tribunal rulings, minimizing delays in resolution.
4. Alternative Water Sources: Explore sustainable alternatives such as rainwater harvesting, groundwater recharge, and desalination to reduce dependency on shared river water.
5. Public Awareness and Participation: Engage the public in water conservation efforts and promote equitable sharing of water resources.

Conclusion

Despite constitutional frameworks and legal mechanisms, inter-state water disputes remain unresolved due to a combination of complex issues, political agendas, and institutional weaknesses. A comprehensive approach, including legal reforms, improved cooperation, and public participation, is essential to resolve these disputes effectively and equitably.