Answer in 150 words: Mechanism for settling inter-state disputes. (2020, 10 Marks)
Inter-state disputes in India fall into three classes: river waters, boundaries, and shared assets or resources after reorganisation. The Constitution anticipated them and built a layered mechanism, from negotiation through deliberation to adjudication, reflecting Granville Austin‘s view of Indian federalism as cooperative rather than competitive.
Negotiated settlement
- Bilateral talks between Chief Ministers are the first resort. Under the ISRWD Act, a failed negotiation is a legal precondition for a tribunal.
- Union mediation, usually by the Home Ministry, supports these talks. The Assam–Meghalaya MoU of March 2022 settled six of twelve disputed areas. The Assam–Arunachal Namsai Declaration (2022) and MoU (2023) led to boundary pillars being erected in 2026.
Deliberative forums
- Inter-State Council under Article 263, set up in 1990. Its first constitutional purpose is inquiry into inter-state disputes, but the 1990 Order withheld that function, and the Council has not met since 2016.
- Zonal Councils under the States Reorganisation Act 1956, and the North Eastern Council. The revived Zonal Councils now settle practical irritants such as asset division, and the Southern Zonal Council’s August 2026 meeting discussed Cauvery and Mullaperiyar.
Adjudication
- Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes about legal rights between states, as in the Mullaperiyar dam-safety litigation.
- Article 262 and the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956 set up ad hoc tribunals whose published awards carry the force of a Supreme Court decree, with courts otherwise barred. A tribunal still sits on the Mahanadi, and in February 2026 the Supreme Court directed the Union to constitute one for the Pennaiyar.
- Article 3 lets Parliament redraw boundaries, and commissions such as the Mahajan Commission (1967) on Belagavi advise it.
Prevention
- The River Boards Act 1956 provides for joint basin planning but has never been used. Implementing bodies such as the Cauvery Water Management Authority (2018) enforce awards once they are made.
Assessment
The machinery is complete on paper but slow in practice. The Cauvery dispute went from tribunal (1990) to award (2007) to final judgment (2018); the Mahajan report was never implemented; and a 2019 Bill for a permanent tribunal lapsed in 2024. Settlements have followed political alignment more than institutional design.
Conclusion
India does not lack mechanisms; it lacks the habit of using the preventive and deliberative ones. A permanent water tribunal with mandatory mediation and a regularly convened Inter-State Council would move disputes from courtrooms back to the negotiating table.