Q.Constitutional mechanisms to resolve the inter-state water disputes have failed to address and solve the problems. Is the failure due to structural or process inadequacy or both? Discuss.

Body

graph TD
    Mechanisms["Mechanisms for Resolving Inter-State Water Disputes"] --> Article262["Article 262"]
    Mechanisms --> ISRWD["Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956"]
    Mechanisms --> Tribunal["Tribunal System"]
    Mechanisms --> CentralGov["Role of Central Government"]
    Mechanisms --> ProposedTribunal["Proposed Permanent Tribunal"]

Structural Inadequacies

• Ambiguity in Constitutional Provisions:
  • While Article 262 empowers Parliament to legislate on inter-state river disputes, it lacks clear mechanisms for enforcing tribunal decisions.
  • Example: States frequently reject tribunal awards, as seen in the long-standing Cauvery Water Dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
• Absence of Uniform Water Laws:
  • Under the Seventh Schedule, water is primarily a state subject, which encourages states to claim exclusive ownership over river waters and resist federal coordination.
• Lack of Central Authority:
  • The absence of an authoritative, centralized regulatory body, such as a National Water Framework, hinders coordinated and holistic water resource management.

Process Inadequacies

• Delays in Tribunal Formation and Awards:
  • Tribunals often take an excessively long time to reach decisions, leaving disputes unresolved for decades.
  • Example: The Cauvery Tribunal took 16 years (from 1990 to 2007) to deliver its final award.
• Non-Binding Nature of Awards:
  • Tribunal decisions are frequently contested in courts, causing severe implementation delays.
  • Example: Karnataka delayed the execution of the Cauvery verdict, which eventually required Supreme Court intervention.
• Lack of Consensus Mechanisms:
  • Political and electoral dynamics often discourage states from cooperating, leading to prolonged deadlocks.
  • Example: In the Krishna River dispute, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana have struggled to reach an agreement on water sharing despite multiple tribunals, due to competing political pressures.