Comment: Inter – state water disputes. (2010)
An inter-state water dispute is a difference between States over the use, distribution or control of the waters of a river that crosses their boundaries. A river basin is one hydrological unit cut by the map into pieces, each with its own electorate, which is why water is the most persistent class of conflict in Indian federalism.
The constitutional scheme
- Entry 17, State List makes water a state subject, but subject to Entry 56, Union List, which lets Parliament bring inter-state rivers under Union regulation by law. Parliament has never passed a general law doing so.
- Article 262 lets Parliament provide for adjudication and bar the courts. Two 1956 statutes followed: the River Boards Act, meant to prevent disputes through joint basin planning — not one board has ever been constituted under it — and the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, under which the Union sets up a tribunal when negotiation fails. Section 11 excludes court jurisdiction.
- The 2002 amendment, following the Sarkaria Commission, set time limits: one year to constitute a tribunal, and three years (extendable by two) to deliver an award.
Major disputes
| River | States | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Cauvery | Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Puducherry | 2007 award modified by the Supreme Court (16 Feb 2018); managed by the CWMA and CWRC |
| Ravi–Beas / SYL canal | Punjab, Haryana | 1987 report never notified; CM-level talks in January 2026 |
| Krishna | Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra | tribunal re-hearing after the 2014 bifurcation |
| Mahadayi | Goa, Karnataka, Maharashtra | 2018 award notified 2020; under challenge |
| Mahanadi | Odisha, Chhattisgarh | tribunal’s term extended to 13 Jan 2027 |
| Pennaiyar | Tamil Nadu, Karnataka | tribunal ordered by the Supreme Court, 2 Feb 2026 |
Why the tribunal system underperforms
- Delay: Cauvery ran from a 1970 request to a 1990 tribunal, a 2007 award and a 2018 judgment; time limits are extended routinely.
- Non-notification and non-compliance: an award binds only once gazetted, and the Ravi–Beas and Krishna II awards remain unnotified. Karnataka’s 1991 ordinance against the Cauvery interim award was held unconstitutional in In Re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1991), yet distress-year compliance stays grudging.
- Judicial composition: benches of judges decide hydrological and agronomic questions from partisan state data; the Punchhi Commission (2010) urged multidisciplinary tribunals.
- The courts return anyway: through Article 136 appeals and Article 131 suits on dam safety (Mullaperiyar), the Supreme Court remains the final arbiter despite Article 262.
- Political incentives: Alan Richards and Nirvikar Singh argue that entanglement with wider centre–state conflict compounds disputes; chief ministers, moreover, gain more from fighting than settling.
Reforms
- The ISRWD (Amendment) Bill 2019 — a single permanent tribunal, a Disputes Resolution Committee for mediation, a national water data bank, and awards binding without notification — passed the Lok Sabha but lapsed in 2024.
- The Mihir Shah Committee (2016) proposed a unified National Water Commission; basin-wide boards under the 1956 Act remain unused.
- The Inter-State Council under Article 263 has never been given a water dispute.
Conclusion
Adjudication divides water but cannot build trust. Durable settlement needs river-basin organisations, shared data, a distress-sharing formula and a Union willing to enforce awards — moving the problem from confrontational litigation to cooperative federalism.