A Critical Analysis On Inter- State River Water Disputes - Consititutional And Legal Perspectives

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T17:09:46.12409+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:12:40.859+00:00

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON INTER- STATE RIVER WATER

DISPUTES: CONSITITUTIONAL AND LEGAL

PERSPECTIVES

Archana Nair, LLM, School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru

ABSTRACT

Water is one of the primary sources of life and it is this essentiality that often leads to it becoming the bone of contention amongst several Indian states in turn leading to interstate water disputes. The paper herein attempts to analyse the nature of interstate water disputes and why they seem to be unresolvable despite a law that is in place indicating to the fact that the law laid down is indeed ill equipped to resolve an issue that seems to be a standoff for several centuries. The researcher contends that disputes have not been resolved through negotiations amongst the riparian states.

It is the unenforceability of the tribunal awards, shortcoming of the tribunal and the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court that are the major reasons for the delay and lack of substantial decisions being rendered in the case of interstate water disputes in turn leading to these provisions being mere letters and not in tune with changing scenarios. It is these aspects that are traversed by the researcher in this piece of writing with the intention of putting forth valuable suggestions to better the same. Keywords: Inter-state water disputes, India, Constitutional perspective, Tribunals, shortcomings

The inalienable need for water cannot be denied. Proof of the same dates back to time immemorial with the early civilisations in India settling down near the river banks to modern day cities sharing a similar location. The right of access to this natural resource is not only a fundamental right now but also a matter of right under natural law, owing to which the deficient or sub-standard supply of water is a legitimate social issue, and squarely, a political and legal issue when it is exploited or misused for private gains. 1 The dispute however is not a new one and dates back to the 19th century continuing even to this day and finds itself being the topic of disputes, discussions, debates and a highlight of various election manifestoes.

The Constitution of India provides for the Parliament to enact a law relating to interstate water disputes ousting the jurisdiction of the courts including the Supreme court in the adjudication of interstate water disputes. 2 The Parliament in its competence has enacted the ISWD Act3 providing for a mechanism to resolve disputes amongst states through setting up of an ad-hoc tribunal and unfortunately ousting the jurisdiction of the courts. It was the opinion of Dr. B R Ambedkar that, water disputes may arise between states giving rise to the need for a special permanent body and that it was best left to the Parliamentary wisdom to make laws relating to the same. 4 The same however has failed the test of time. The paper therefore delves into the question as to what possibly could be the reason for such a long stand-off despite the presence of existing laws.

The researcher through instances and decisions taken by the adjudicating authorities in the past asserts that, it is the non-adherence of the Riparian states towards the unenforceable tribunal award as well as ousting of the jurisdiction of the courts in interstate water disputes that are the reasons unresolved interstate water disputes. Shortly after gaining independence, during the Constitution drafting period in India, water was a crucial factor in deciding how power would be divided between the central government and the state governments. The primary focus of the negotiations was whether resources like water should be controlled by the states or by the Union of India. Once it had attained independence, the land was reorganized according to language and formed states that were linguistically and culturally inclined.

Today, India possesses an extensive territory where every state differs in terms of landscape and geography, all with the ability to form laws on the management of water 1 Ramasamy R Iyer, Towards Water Widom – Limits, Justice, Harmony 31-33 (Sage Publications, New Delhi, 2007).

2 The Constitution of India, Art. 262(2).

3 The Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (Act No. 33 of 1956).

4 Constituent Assembly of India Vol. IX, 1188

resources. 5 During the negotiation process, the central/federal government kept certain provisions that granted it more authority to make laws on national matters and to manage the distribution of river water, among other things. 6 Despite the laws in place, water naturally flows across territorial boundaries, leading to the necessity of sharing the resource among different territories, whether they want to or not. Another problem is the uneven distribution of natural resources, as nature does not recognize or care about human-created borders leading to disputes between riparian and non-riparian states. 7 Though mechanisms have been put in place to deal with the aforementioned aspects.

Surprisingly, the tribunal system established by the ISWD Act does not live up to its expectations subjecting it to multiple criticisms for causing significant delays throughout the entire dispute process, viz. , the creation of the tribunal, tribunal hearings with supplementary clarification, notification of the award etc. The suggestions made by the Sarkaria Commission were neglected for an extended period. However, it was ultimately taken into account after. analysing the report provided by both the sub-committee and the Standing Committee of interstate council. Following the suggestions of those committees, the Parliament made some changes to the ISWD Act in the beginning of 2002.

One of the key suggestions the tribunal's decision shall carry equal weight as the Supreme Court's ruling requirement of an order from being made, or if it was sufficient to prove that an order had been requested. 8 The need arose to address as to whether the amended sub-section seemed to bar the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under Article under 136 or attempted to further enhance the impact of the award passed by the tribunal that would be considered equal to the Supreme Court; the highestranking judicial body. In the '2017 case,' the court tackled this question and prompted the initiating of judicial review proceedings on CWDT's decision. Hence, it is noteworthy to study the ouster clause incorporated in the Constitution and related laws pertaining to interstate water conflicts with that of Original and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court.

The limitations of the dispute resolution mechanism may be summarised as; prolonged processes and significant holdups in resolving conflicts. Lack of a timeline for a water tribunal to make a decision and submit the report. Even though the decision is final and outside of the

5 Constitution of India supra note 1 at Seventh Schedule, State List: Entry-17

6 S CHOKKAKULA, “The Political Geographies of Interstate Water Disputes in India” 2015 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Washington at 102

7 MVV RAMANA, Inter-State River Water Disputes in India (Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltd., 2009) at 25.

8 ISWD (Amendment) Act, 2002, s. 6(2)

jurisdiction of Courts, both States have the option to appeal to the Supreme Court through Article 1369, which allows for a Special Leave Petition. The tribunal does not have a diverse composition and is made up solely of individuals from the legal system. The lack of universally agreed-upon water data makes it challenging to establish a baseline for adjudication. 10 The increasing connection between water and politics has turned the conflicts into battlegrounds for vote bank strategies. Therefore, in order to settle the prolonged river water conflict and rectify the deficiencies of the Act, the interstate river water dispute Amendment bill was presented in the Lok Sabha in 201711. The bill suggests creating a Tribunal for interstate river water to resolve disputes with the help of the Disputes Resolution Committee.

The Centre has the option to establish a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) to peacefully resolve any interstate disputes. All current Tribunals will be disbanded and the water Dispute currently being decided by those Tribunals will be transferred to the new Tribunal, with DRC members selected from relevant fields as determined by the Government. Interstate water disputes have been a significant problem in India for many years, yet they remain unresolved. Irrigation from rivers has been a crucial water source for crops in India, given its agrarian economy. Every riparian state has specific requirements and asserts their entitlements to the waters. Similarly to Karnataka, other states who share the Cauvery River should also build dams to optimize water usage, while being mindful of potential impacts on downstream states.

Every Riparian State must take into account the needs of fellow riparian States, as this is the primary issue causing disputes where each State prioritizes its own interests. Even though Tribunals have awarded awards that States have opposed, negotiations remain the best solution. Despite past failures, States should still attempt to resolve disputes through negotiations due to the shorter time frame involved compared to Tribunals. Further, issues regarding the use of authoritative information by the Tribunal would not be present. States, while negotiating, ought to make known their claims and requirements so as to find a solution to the Dispute. Another approach in solving the Dispute problem is through making adjustments within the Tribunal so as not to cast any doubts regarding its credibility. 9 Article 136.

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court-(1) Not withstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

10 https://jalshakti-dowr.gov.in/annual-reports-2/

11 Interstate River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2017, Lok Sabha debates-https://prsindia.org/billtrack/theinter-state-river-water-disputes-amendment-bill-2017

In addition, the idea of judicial review is an integral part of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India12 that the jurisdiction was conferred regarding the High Courts as per articles 226 and 227, and concerning the Supreme Court as per article 32 are an integral part of the unchangeable fundamental framework of the Constitution. The same was not applied to the special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution because it operates solely for extraordinary appellate jurisdiction and not for enforcement of fundamental rights.

The Court interpreted section 6(2) of the ISWD (Amendment) Act, 2019 as the deeming provision leading to a question ‘whether they (the Parliament) intend to give binding effect to the award passed by the tribunal or provides finality to the award as against the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court under article 136? ’ The Court disputed only two facts in the tribunal's conclusions. The initial point of contention was the presence of factual information on groundwater and its utilization in the Cauvery delta area of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The Court disregarded the tribunal's conclusions and decided to allocate 10 TMC of groundwater instead of the 20 TMC determined by the tribunal for the final sharing of Cauvery waters. The Court noted the lack of empirical data on groundwater availability in Karnataka's deltas.

Additionally, it challenged the tribunal's water allocation decisions for domestic and industrial use in the state. The Court granted 4. 75 TMC more than the 1. 75 TMC given by the tribunal by not assuming 50% groundwater for drinking water needs, analysing Bengaluru's entire population in the 2025 census. Thus, the Court stressed the necessity of guaranteeing access to drinking water as the top priority to meet basic human needs, as stipulated in Article 14 of the Berlin Rules and National Water Policies. 13 The Supreme Court's importance in interstate water disputes remains significant despite its jurisdiction being restricted by constitutional and statutory provisions. Technical problems and political influence on water caused the Supreme Court to avoid getting involved in interstate water conflicts.

Recently, there has been a rise in various disputes being brought before the Supreme Court, encompassing not just legal issues but also technical, scientific, and biological elements in cases related to crime, cyber problems, environmental concerns, intellectual property legislation, and similar matters. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court enlists the assistance of amicus curiae and investigates with the help of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in order

12 AIR 1997 SC 1125

13 Id., at 208, 209, para 433, 434.

to deliver fair justice to the involved parties. The ISWD (Amendment) Bill, 201914 would just be like an old wine in a new bottle. The result of the '2017 case' offers an additional platform for the tribunal's verdict i. e. the Supreme Court. 15 The affected state(s) will ultimately use up the last available solution from the Supreme Court, and the ruling from a tribunal may not be conclusive despite what the law states. The central government should focus on implementing Supreme Court orders effectively instead of making unnecessary excuses for not complying with them. The Supreme Court, as the highest constitutional court, serves as a mechanism to maintain balance in federalism and is the ultimate authority in resolving conflicts between the Union and state(s) as well as among states in a federal democratic Constitution.

It is the sole authority that can address constitutional, legal, political, economic, social, and other issues regardless of their complexity. Therefore, the government should consider adopting the suggestions of NCRWC16 and granting the Supreme Court sole authority to handle ISWD17 for quicker, more effective dispute resolution. Reforming the tribunal helps, but a comprehensive legal framework is needed for full address of the issue with the establishing of a structure to unify the current regulations on legal matters policies. The overarching law is likely to coordinate the actions of the governance. in line with the advanced regulations of watercourses and the utilization of resources laws pertaining to the protection of the environment. It will serve as the official legal and legislative standard for the future.

Authorities are restricted and their actions are determined by established legal principles and ought to be enforced on, and guide, the way of sovereign legislative power that is in place The federal constitution is enforced by units, decreasing political possibilities and misuse. These changes, along with those suggested in this article, have the potential to minimize the chances of the resource becoming politicized. The Supreme courts authority in interstate water disputes needs to be enhanced in order to address the issue at hand. Nonetheless, considering the alarming forecast impending water shortages are necessary for effective action. Dealing with these problems is becoming more important. Therefore, effectively managing the existing 14 Parliamentary debates on the Interstate River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019, Lok Sabha archiveshttps://prsindia.

org/billtrack/the-inter-state-river-water-disputes-amendment-bill-2019

15 AIRONLINE 2018 SC 626

16 National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution

17 Inter State Water Disputes

resources. having resources is essential, and a more effective approach to managing water, the most valuable of resources would represent a major move in the correct path.