Constitutional Bodies

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.

Model Answer

Introduction

The Election Commission of India (ECI), under Article 324 of the Constitution, plays a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity of India’s democratic process. Its duties include overseeing the preparation of voter lists, deploying security during elections, and raising electoral awareness. The ECI also ensures that the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is adhered to during elections, taking strict action against any violations by political parties or candidates. Additionally, it monitors electoral malpractices, such as rigging or vote-buying, and takes appropriate actions to preserve fairness in elections.

The Impact of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023

The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 was introduced to strengthen the ECI’s independence. The Act addresses critical aspects like ensuring no re-appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs), thereby insulating them from potential executive influence. Furthermore, the Act outlines a new selection committee for the appointment of the CEC and ECs, consisting of the Prime Minister, a Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

However, concerns have emerged about the potential impact of the new Act on the ECI’s autonomy. One of the primary concerns is the composition of the selection committee, which has an executive majority. This could lead to politically motivated appointments, undermining the impartiality of the ECI. Moreover, the Act allows the selection committee to bypass the recommendations of the Search Committee, which could further compromise the ECI’s independence. Additionally, the Act limits the eligibility for CEC and EC positions to individuals who have previously held high-ranking government positions, potentially excluding candidates with diverse backgrounds and expertise.

The Act also equates the salaries of the CEC and ECs to that of the Cabinet Secretary, raising concerns that the government may exert indirect control over the ECI.

In conclusion, while the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 aims to protect the ECI’s independence, it introduces elements that may undermine the Commission’s autonomy, potentially influencing its ability to conduct free and fair elections.