Inter-state water disputes tribunals
Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunals
What are Inter-State Water Disputes?
India has several rivers flowing across state boundaries. Disputes arise when one state’s use of river water affects the quantity or quality of water available to another state. These conflicts are called Inter-State Water Disputes.
Constitutional & Legal Framework
Article 262 of the Constitution of India provides that Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution, or control of waters of any inter-state river or river valley.
Parliament enacted the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, which provides for the establishment of Water Disputes Tribunals to adjudicate disputes between states.
Role of Water Disputes Tribunals
Established on reference by the Central Government when states cannot settle disputes bilaterally.
Tribunals have powers of a civil court and their decisions are binding.
Aims to balance equitable distribution of water based on factors like basin area, irrigation needs, population, etc.
Important Case Laws on Inter-State Water Disputes and Tribunals
1. Brahmaputra Water Disputes Tribunal Case (1980)
Context:
Dispute between Assam and Arunachal Pradesh over sharing waters of the Brahmaputra river.
Significance:
This was one of the earliest water dispute tribunals formed under the 1956 Act. The tribunal aimed at adjudicating equitable water sharing, considering the interests of both upper and lower riparian states.
Legal Importance:
Set a precedent for formation and functioning of water tribunals under the 1956 Act.
2. Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) Case (1990s–2018)
Facts:
A long-standing dispute between Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry over the waters of the Cauvery River.
Judgment:
The CWDT gave its final award in 2007, allocating specific shares to each state. The Supreme Court later modified and upheld parts of the award in 2018 in the M. Krishnan vs. Union of India case.
Significance:
Clarified principles of equitable apportionment.
Established tribunal’s award as binding and enforceable.
Highlighted challenges in water sharing due to varying needs and drought conditions.
3. Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Case
Context:
Dispute among Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka over Godavari river waters.
Outcome:
Tribunal gave an award allocating water shares, emphasizing the need for basin-wide planning and cooperative management.
Legal Importance:
Reinforced the principle that water sharing must consider entire river basin and varied interests.
4. Sujit Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2002) — Bihar Water Dispute Case
Facts:
Dispute over sharing of water between Bihar and Jharkhand after Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the newly formed state (Jharkhand) is entitled to a share of water based on equitable principles and continuation of existing arrangements unless modified by tribunal.
Significance:
Clarified the status of water sharing in cases of state bifurcation and the continuity of rights and obligations.
5. Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunal Awards are Binding (Union of India v. Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, 1990)
Facts:
Dispute over enforcement of tribunal awards.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that tribunal awards under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act are binding on parties and the central government must enforce them.
Significance:
Strengthened the authority of water tribunals and ensured implementation of their awards.
Summary
Water disputes arise due to competing demands of riparian states.
Article 262 and the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 provide the legal mechanism for resolving these disputes.
Water Disputes Tribunals have been set up for major river disputes like Cauvery, Godavari, Brahmaputra.
Tribunal awards are binding and enforceable.
Courts have clarified equitable sharing, state rights post-bifurcation, and the role of central government.
RELATED Blog
0 comments