Water is one of the most crucial resources for any state, but when rivers flow across multiple states, disputes over their usage often arise. Recognizing the need for a structured mechanism to resolve such conflicts, the framers of the Indian Constitution included Article 262, which deals with the adjudication of inter-state river water disputes.

Bare Provision

• Disputes relating to Waters
• Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley.
• Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1).

Understanding Article 262 in Detail

We take note of the two key provisions in:

• Clause (1): Parliamentary Authority to Resolve Disputes
  This clause gives Parliament the power to create laws and mechanisms to resolve conflicts over the sharing of inter-state rivers.
• Clause (2): Exclusion of Judicial Intervention
  Parliament can pass laws that prevent courts, including the Supreme Court, from interfering in water disputes, ensuring that they are resolved exclusively through tribunals or other mechanisms.

To implement Article 262, Parliament enacted the Inter-State River Water Disputes (ISRWD) Act, 1956. This law provides a structured approach to resolving conflicts between states over water sharing. This has been effective in dispute resolution among countries which share waters; however, there have been more cases that raise it as an ongoing issue.

Key Features of the ISRWD Act, 1956

• When a dispute arises, the Central Government constitutes a tribunal to adjudicate the matter, which helps in dispute resolution and makes ISRWD a tribunal formulation.
• The tribunal's verdict is final and cannot be challenged in the Supreme Court or any other court. The judgments are legally binding.
• Time-Bound Resolution method is what the ISRWD Act resembles. A 2002 amendment mandates a time frame for the tribunal's decision, ensuring quicker resolutions.

Significance of Article 262

Water disputes can lead to tensions between states, and Article 262 provides a legal framework to resolve them peacefully.

Water is not just a resource; it is a lifeline for millions. In a country as vast and diverse as India, where rivers flow across multiple states, disputes over water are inevitable. To ensure fairness, India's legal framework prevents any single state from dominating an inter-state river, allowing equitable access for all.
 
One key approach to resolving such conflicts is the establishment of tribunals, which act as neutral bodies to fairly divide water resources among states. The idea is simple: Instead of states fighting endless battles, an independent tribunal assesses water availability, needs, and usage patterns before making a binding decision.
 
However, the process is not always smooth. The Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India, has supported research that examines why the Supreme Court's role is restricted in these disputes. The reasoning is both practical and political. Courts are designed to interpret laws, but river water conflicts are deeply intertwined with geography, ecology, and politics. Their resolution requires more than just legal judgments—it needs scientific analysis, environmental considerations, and policy-making expertise.

Since tribunal decisions are final, it prevents long-drawn court battles, ensuring faster implementation. The moving back and forth of cases and development of much paper work is reduced.

Challenges and Criticism

1. Delay in Tribunal Decisions:
   • Some tribunals take decades to resolve disputes, worsening the situation.
   • Example: The Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal was set up in 1990, but a final verdict came only in 2007.
2. Lack of Enforcement Mechanism:
   • Even after a tribunal's verdict, states sometimes refuse to comply due to lack of strict enforcement.
3. Political Influence:
   • Water disputes are often used as political tools, making resolution difficult.
   • Example: The Krishna River Dispute between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh remains unresolved due to political interference.

Examples of Inter-State Water Disputes Resolved Under Article 262

• Cauvery Water Dispute (Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Puducherry)
  • Issue: Karnataka and Tamil Nadu disagree on water-sharing from the Cauvery River.
  • Resolution: The Cauvery Water Tribunal was set up, and after decades, a final ruling was given in 2018 by the Supreme Court, modifying the tribunal's earlier verdict.
• Krishna Water Dispute (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana)
  • Issue: The four states claim a higher share of Krishna River water.
  • Resolution: The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal-II was formed in 2004, but Telangana's formation in 2014 complicated the dispute further.

The Way Forward
In conclusion , Article 262 provides a structured legal framework, delays in tribunal decisions and lack of enforcement remain major challenges. To improve the system by setting strict time limits for tribunal decisions, Strengthen enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance, use technology (satellite data, AI-based monitoring) for fair water-sharing and de-politicise  water disputes and treat them as humanitarian issues rather than political battles.

India's water resources should be a source of unity, not conflict. A more effective policy-driven approach, combined with technological advancements, can help prevent future disputes and ensure equitable water distribution for all states.