Roadmap for Answer Writing

Introduction

• Briefly introduce the importance of resolving inter-state water disputes in India.
• Mention the constitutional mechanisms, such as Article 262 and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, intended to address these disputes.
• State the main question: Despite these mechanisms, why have they been ineffective in resolving inter-state water disputes?

1. Constitutional Provisions and Legal Framework:

• Article 262: Empowers Parliament to establish tribunals to resolve disputes concerning inter-state rivers.
• Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956: Provides procedures for setting up tribunals and outlines principles for water allocation.
• Entry 56 of the Union List: Grants the Union Government authority to regulate inter-state rivers for public interest.

2. Reasons for Ineffectiveness

A. Complexity of Water Disputes

• Water disputes involve scientific complexities, including hydrology, hydrogeology, and environmental factors.
• Water sharing involves multiple interests, making it hard to reach consensus.
• Example: The Cauvery dispute is a multi-party dispute involving four states, each with different water needs.

B. Politicization of Water Issues

• Water disputes are often used for political gains, where state leaders manipulate the issue for electoral benefits.
• Political pressures interfere with impartial dispute resolution.

C. Lack of River Boards

• Despite the provisions for river boards under the law, no river boards have been set up. This lack of planning and management results in fragmented approaches to water resource development.
• Without a coordinated body, management and equitable distribution of water across states are difficult.

D. Judicial Intervention and Delay

• The frequent judicial interventions delay the resolution process, as courts often take years to decide on complex water disputes.
• Example: The Supreme Court’s role in the Cauvery dispute has often resulted in delays and changes in the verdict, creating uncertainty.

E. Absence of Effective Implementation

• Even when tribunals provide verdicts, their implementation often faces resistance from states, leading to delayed or incomplete solutions.
• Example: Recommendations from tribunals, like the one on the Krishna river dispute, have faced difficulties in execution.

3. Measures Needed:

• Propose legal reforms (e.g., the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019).
• Suggest the establishment of River Basin Management boards and joint authorities for better cooperation.
• Need for transparency in water resource data and public participation to hold the government accountable.
• Encourage judicial restraint and reliance on tribunals for effective resolution.

Conclusion

• Summarize the reasons behind the ineffectiveness of constitutional mechanisms in resolving inter-state water disputes.
• Emphasize the need for a balanced approach that includes legal reforms, stronger inter-state cooperation, and improved implementation of existing mechanisms.

Relevant Facts to Include

1. Article 262 and Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956: Legal basis for adjudicating water disputes.
2. Cauvery Water Dispute: Example of a multi-party dispute and how the absence of a final resolution has led to prolonged tension.
3. Supreme Court Intervention: Mention the ongoing judicial involvement and its consequences on the resolution process, especially in cases like Cauvery, Krishna, and Yamuna disputes.
4. Cauvery Water Tribunal: Example of ineffective implementation despite tribunal verdicts.
5. Proposed Bill (2019): Mention the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill to address some of these challenges.