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. (UPSC 2013, 10 Marks, )

EN ह

Constitutional Mechanisms to Resolve Inter-State Water Disputes

Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956:

• Provision: The Act empowers the Central Government to constitute a tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between two or more states in relation to waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys.
• Process: Once a tribunal is constituted, no court has jurisdiction over the dispute referred to the tribunal.
• Challenges:
• Delay in Formation: States often take a long time to approach the Central Government, and the Centre may delay constituting the tribunal.
• Tribunal Delays: Tribunals themselves take a long time to give their verdict, sometimes spanning decades.
• Lack of Finality: Even after the tribunal’s decision, states often disagree, leading to prolonged conflicts.

Article 262 of the Constitution:

• Provision: 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 any inter-state river or river valley.
• Exclusion of Jurisdiction: Article 262 also allows the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts in respect of inter-state water disputes.
• Challenges:
• Judicial Review: Despite Article 262, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) and Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) has been invoked by states, complicating the dispute resolution process.
• Ineffectiveness: The Central Government's discretionary power in deciding when to refer a dispute to a tribunal is seen as ineffective in resolving the disputes promptly.

Failure Due to Structural or Process Inadequacy (or Both)

• Structural Inadequacy:
• Multiplicity of Authorities: The existence of multiple bodies, such as the Central Government, State Governments, and the Tribunal, often leads to overlapping responsibilities and delays.
• Lack of Permanent Tribunal: The absence of a permanent tribunal leads to ad-hocism, with each dispute requiring a new tribunal, causing delays in resolution.
• Limited Scope: The current mechanisms focus only on adjudication rather than a holistic approach including mediation, negotiation, and continuous monitoring.
• Process Inadequacy:
• Delay in Adjudication: Tribunals take an inordinately long time to reach a decision, leading to the escalation of conflicts.
• Non-Binding Nature of Decisions: Tribunal decisions are often not binding on the states, and there is no effective enforcement mechanism.
• Central Government's Discretion: The Central Government's discretionary power in constituting a tribunal can be influenced by political considerations, leading to delays and biased outcomes.
• Combined Structural and Process Inadequacies:
• Lack of Enforcement Mechanism: Both structural and process inadequacies contribute to the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism for tribunal awards.
• Inadequate Addressing of Long-Term Solutions: The system fails to address the underlying issues, such as equitable water sharing, environmental concerns, and long-term basin management.

The failure of constitutional mechanisms to address and solve inter-state water disputes in India can be attributed to a combination of structural and process inadequacies. The lack of enforceability, lengthy process, limited jurisdiction, and political interference are some of the key factors that hinder the effectiveness of these mechanisms.