Inter-state water disputes in India represent a recurring challenge within its federal framework, often exacerbating tensions between riparian states. Despite the constitutional and legislative mechanisms, including the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, legal resolutions have proven to be protracted, politically sensitive, and frequently ineffective in delivering sustainable outcomes.

Judicial interventions, particularly by the Supreme Court, while authoritative, often face limitations in enforcement and compliance, further questioning the role of legal adjudication in managing such disputes. This abstract explores the core issues underlying inter-state water conflicts, such as competing claims over river waters, historical agreements, environmental changes, and population pressures. It also examines how existing legal and institutional mechanisms fail to accommodate the complex interplay of legal rights, regional politics, and ecological realities.

The paper argues that the current framework, rooted in legalistic and adversarial approaches, must evolve toward cooperative federalism, emphasizing consensus-building and integrated water resource management. Without structural reforms and political will, inter-state water disputes may deepen the federal crisis, undermining national unity and development. This study highlights the urgent need for a more pragmatic, adaptive, and collaborative policy regime to address water-sharing issues in a rapidly changing socio-environmental landscape.

Introduction
Inter-state Water Disputes and the limits of legal Resolution: A Federal Crisis (ISWDs) is a continuing challenge to federal water governance in India. Rooted in constitutional, historic-geographical, and institutional ambiguities, they tend to become prolonged conflicts between the states that share river basins.

This paper examines the constitutional complexities, contentious political federalism, and identity-based electoral political dynamics that fuel ISWDs. It discusses the River Basins Management Bill (2018) and the potential benefits of creating a River Basins Authority. The paper argues for the need to manage the multiple political challenges to cooperative federalism and the institutional trust must be fostered and identified for the positive politicisation of such disputes for facilitating a public discourse focused on dispute resolution and consensus-building.

The inter-state water disputes in India, while addressed legally through the inter-state river water disputes act, 1956. And the Supreme Court often faces limitation and can create a sense of federal crisis. While legal frameworks exist for dispute resolution, factors like political interference, evolving water demands, and the need for a more holistic, multi-faceted approach can hinder effective solutions, potentially leading to prolonged conflicts and resource allocation challenges.

Constitutional Provision Relating To Inter-State Water Disputes

Part 3rd of the Indian constitution enshrines fundamental right to all citizens and incorporates the notions of universal human rights. The Supreme Court has sporadically interpreted the constitution to deliver justice and probate social and economic rights. Even though, Right to water is not explicitly stated as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has majestically interpreted and read it through the Right to life.

The Supreme Court held that right to water is right to life, and thus a fundamental right. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) it was held that, water is a part of right to life not to mention a basic human right and a basic need for the survival of human lives and livelihood. In India laws related to water is a state subject as per schedule 7 of the Constitution of India.

Government of India Act, 1935 delivers power to the state to legislate in their respective areas. Therefore, States have the exclusive power to regulate water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage, hydropower and fisheries. However, the power conferred upon the states is not absolute in nature and have certain restrictions as well.

The power to legislate on subjects that pertain to shipping and navigation on national waterways as well as powers to regulate the use of tidal and territorial waters shall fall under the ambit of union legislation. As per the Constitution of India the Union also has the right to adjudicate matters comprising of inter-state water disputes. In this regard the union enacted the Inter-State Water Disputes Act and Adopted in 1956. This act provides for establishment of tribunals to adjudicate the matters pertaining to inter-state water disputes that could not be resolved through negotiation.

The River Boards Act was enacted by the Parliament to set up advisory River Boards by the Central Government to provide assistance and advice to the state regarding inter-state or river valley development. The River Boards aims at assisting States in matters relating to conservation, control and efficient utilization of water resources, the promotion and operation of schemes for irrigation, water supply or drainage or the promotion and operation of schemes for flood control. However, the act has never been used in practice.

The early existing concept of riparian rights became the origin for the rule of surface water. In order to provide similar quality, quantity and undiminished flow of water to all riparian owners had a right to use the water of a stream flowing past their land equally with other riparian owners. With time the concept took a firm position and now focuses on recognising water as public trust.

Legislative competence
The State list vests power in States to legislate (State list, entry 17), with respect to the following subject: Water, that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power, subject to the provisions of Entry 56 of List 1. Entry 56, of the union list reads:
"Regulation and development of inter-state rivers and river valleys, to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the union is declared by parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest."

Article 262 of Indian Constitution talks about, adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys: Any disputes or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, in any inter-state river or river valley the parliament shall have the right to adjudicate the matter.

Article 13(3) of the Indian Constitution may in furtherance with "law" include law, order, law, regulation, notification or legal force in India pertaining to the transnational river or river valley. Notwithstanding anything in this constitution, Parliament may, by law, provide that neither the Supreme Court or any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1) Act of 1956.

The Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 was enacted by the Parliament withstanding under Article 262 of the Constitution. Section 3 of the Act contemplates the reference of a "water dispute" to a Tribunal. Section 2 (c) defines "water dispute" meaning dispute between two or more state governments concerning water issues. An individual cannot directly make a complaint, the state government is provided to request to the centre government for resolving the dispute or any matter related whatsoever.

The matters related to inter-state rivers are frequently brought before the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petitions. Article 32 gives the Supreme Court only original jurisdiction. Article 131 of the constitution gives the court original as well as an exclusive jurisdiction as it can solve disputes that arise out of the Presidential and vice-presidential elections.

The Tribunals have the power to resolve disputes between the states under the provision of Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956; however, the Supreme Court has the power to bind the award. In the case of state of Rajasthan v UOI, it was held that the Supreme Court has the power to provide legal relief to procure the rights of the affected state.

Under Article 143(1) of the Constitution the Central Government (via President) can seek opinion from the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction on the matters concerning Inter-State river disputes. However, the SC has the right to dismiss the matter and declines its opinion although the reasons should be indicated.

Doctrine of Equitable Apportionment

The doctrine of equitable apportionment originated in United States of America through several decisions of the US Supreme Court. India has recognized the theory of equitable apportionment and its vagueness therein. "Equitable apportionment" States that every riparian state is entitled to a fair share of water of an inter-state river. The doctrine has been adopted by the legal system in India through several inter-state water dispute tribunals.

They are as follows:

1. The Indus Commission (1943)
   The disputes shall be settled by agreements. Each party shall get a fair unit of water of the common river, therein applying the rules of equitable apportionment. As per the circumstances, the equitable apportionment can be ceased.
    
2. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal
   It was observed, every party should get the fair unit of water of the common river. However, the principle cannot be applied in all matters. The principle shall be applied according to the necessity and circumstances of the issue.
    
3. The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal
   The doctrine of equitable apportionment can be interpreted on a case-to-case basis. Putting it in a straitjacket formula constraints its application. While adjudicating the matter, a fair regard should be spared to the agreements, judicial decisions, awards, and customs that are binding upon the parties. Considering these factors, if the court otherwise fails to comply with these aspects, the decisions should be made concerning the social and economic needs of the state.

The other matters tribunal considers are:

• The volume of the stream;
• The existing usage by state concerned;
• Areas of land still un-watered;
• State's physical and climatic characteristics;
• Land's relative productivity in the concerned states;
• State-wise drainage;
• Dependency on water supply;
• Alternative method to satisfy the needs;
• Amount of water contributed by states to the inter-state stream;
• Water evaporation in each state; and
• Efficiency in utilization of water by the concerned states.
   

The River Boards Act, 1956

The Act was enacted by the Parliament on 12th September 1956. It aims at formulating and regulating the development of Inter-state River and river valleys. To achieve the same it also provides for the establishment of River Boards. The River Boards was introduced to assist the central government in endeavoring development opportunities, infrastructure, dispute resolution among states, and function other cordial activities.

The Board was formed to advice and assists the government in matters relating to rivers and inland water activities. The Board functions in advisory capacity and not adjudicatory. To suffice the needs of different inter-state rivers and valleys there can be different boards. The Board takes matters related to irrigation and drainage schemes, development of hydro-electric power, flood control plans, promotion of navigation, control and prevention of soil erosion and pollution. In span of over 50 years the government has constituted no such River Board.

The Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956

The Parliament of India has enacted the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 in pursuance of Article 262 of the constitution. The Act empowers to establish water courts to resolve the disputes among states regarding distribution and procurement of transnational rivers, and river valleys. The act was enacted to dissect the national conflict between states.

The salient features of the act are summarized below:

1. The state governments shall send a request to the central government for adjudicating the waterways disputes.
2. The central government can transfer the matter to the tribunal if it fails to negotiate the matter.
3. The tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two other members, nominated by the Chief Justice of India from among persons who, at the time of such nomination are judges of the Supreme Court.
4. The tribunal can appoint an assessor for any advice during the case.
5. The tribunal employs its decision in the report.
6. The same is published and is binding to the parties.
7. The Supreme Court and other courts are barred from any jurisdiction in respect of a dispute referred to the tribunal.
8. To implement tribunal's decision, the central government may frame a scheme.

The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019

The minister of Jal Shakti, Mr. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, introduced the bill in Lok Sabha on july25, 2019. It is an amendment to the inter-state river water disputes act, 1956. The acts provide for the adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-state rivers and river valleys. The state government shall send a request to the central government for adjudicating the water waterway disputes. Disputes Resolution Committee (DRC) shall be set by the central government and seek to resolve a dispute for 1 year (extendable to 6 months). The central government can transfer the matter to the tribunal (within three months from the receipt of the report from the DRC) if it the committee fails to negotiate the matter.

The tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two other members, nominated by the Chief Justice of India from among persons who, at the time of such nomination, are judges of the Supreme Court and two experts serving in the central water engineering service as assessors to advise the bench in its proceedings. The decision by the tribunal should be delivered within 2 years, which may extend to one year. The report of the tribunal shall be submitted to the central government within a period of 1 year, which may extend to 6 months.

The decision of the bench of the tribunal shall be final and binding on the parties involved in the dispute. The central government may frame a scheme to give effect to the tribunal. The central government may frame data banks and information system at the national level for each river basins and an agency shall be formulated to procure information and maintain Data Banks nationwide.

The bill was proposed before the parliament due to lack of adequacy in the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. The former Act had shortfall in its operation and adjudication due to no time limit adjoined to it. The central Water Commission (CWC) and Central Ground Water Board of India (CGWB) are the independent bodies and stand no common forum for the state to communicate on water management.

Major Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunals In India

1. Godavari Water Dispute Tribunal
2. Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal – I
3. Ravi and Beas Water Tribunal
4. Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal
5. Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
6. Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal – II

Various Tribunals have been constituted so far to resolve these Inter-State Water Disputes. But only four tribunals have submitted reports and too after a delay of 28 years. In order to make efficient, speedy tribunals, we must rise above regional dispute and see the issue of water scarcity in its totality. In 2019, Lok Sabha passed a bill for faster inter-state water disputes resolution, by moving Inter-State Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill. The bill emphasized on the need for a single central tribunal, where awards will be given within two years. Recently disputes like Cauvery Water Disputes and Satluj Yamuna Link Canal is examples of how delay in verdict can not only hamper relationship between two states but it can lead to situations of aggregated violence.

Cauvery Water Disputes

The river Cauvery (Kaveri) is a sacred river flowing through Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The river is also known as Dakshina Ganga and it's famous for its scenic beauty and has been an integral part of Tamil literature. It is the fourth largest river in South India, and it rises at the Talakaveri on the Brumaire range in the Western Ghats in Karnataka. The catchment of the river basin lies in the state of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and the Union Territory of Puducherry. 41.2% of the total basin area falls in Karnataka, 55.5% in the state of Tamil Nadu, and 3.3% in Kerala.

Cauvery River and Karnataka

Cauvery is a major source for drinking, irrigation, and industrial use water in Karnataka. It works as a lifeline for the agriculture sector in Mandya, Hassan, Tumkur, Ramanagaram, and Mysore districts. The river becomes important for a city like Bengaluru that has become a hub for MNCs, pharmaceuticals companies, and several industries. Weak monsoon, industrial growth, and rapid urbanization have increased Karnataka's dependency on the river Cauvery.

Cauvery River and Tamil Nadu

Agriculture is the prime and traditional occupation for the people of Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu has very few water resources to maintain its water supply, and thus it relies heavily on the Cauvery river to sustain its agriculture needs. Cauvery becomes important for the livelihood of people and the economy of the state.


Conclusion
Resolving an interstate dispute is not easy, especially when both states are highly dependent on a single resource. The recent climate shift has brought several instances of weak monsoons, droughts, floods, etc., across India. In such situation, the chances of interstate disputes are higher and thus the central government and Supreme Court must gain trust of the states to act as mediators and solve these disputes before they become a political propaganda and turn violent.

References:

• United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2006 – Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis.
• Valsalan, inter-state water disputes in India (central board of irrigation and power), (1997).
• CVJ. Varma, Foreword to Valsalan.
• What price for the priceless? : Implementing the justiciability of the right of water? 120 HARV. L. REV. 1067, 1068-1069 (2007).
• State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000) SC.
• Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and others, writ petitions (c) No. 319 of 1994.
• Schedule 7, List 2, Entries 17 and 21, Constitution of India.
• Schedule 7, List 1, Entry 56, Constitution of India.
• Schedule 7, List 1, Entries 24 25 and 57, Constitution of India.
• Article 262, Constitution of India.
• Inter-state Water Disputes Act, 1956, available at https://www.ielrc.org/content/e5601.
• Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal, Final order and decision of the tribunal, 12 December 1979.
• River Boards Act, 1956.
• Section 13.
• Hanuman Prasad v. Mendwa, AIR 1935.
• M.C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 1997 1 SCC 388.
• Dr. K.C. Joshi, The Constitutional Law Of India, (462), (Central Law Publication Allahabad, 2nd edition, 2013).
• ibid at 463 and 464.
• H.K Saharay, The Constitution of India, An Analytical Approach, (450) (Eastern Law House, Kolkata, 3rd edition, 2002).
• M. Ismail Faruqi v. U.

Written By: Jateesha Rattan, School Of Law - Model Institute Of Engineering And Technology, (MIET)