Inter-state water disputes have outlived the constitutional and statutory machinery designed to resolve them. With reference to Article 262 and the ISRWD Act 1956, examine.

Introduction:

Article 262 empowers Parliament to legislate on inter-state river-water disputes and to bar the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court; the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956 and the River Boards Act 1956 are its statutory expressions, yet the disputes have outlived the machinery designed to resolve them.

Constitutional design: Entry 17 of the State List places water within the State's domain, Entry 56 of the Union List covers inter-state rivers in the national interest, and Article 262 confers an exclusion bar — frequently bypassed by States invoking Article 131 original jurisdiction to bring water disputes before the Supreme Court.

Tribunal record: Eight tribunals have been constituted since 1969 — Krishna, Cauvery, Godavari, Ravi-Beas, Mahanadi (Odisha-Chhattisgarh), and the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal-II under Justice Brijesh Kumar — of which only Krishna, Cauvery and Godavari have delivered substantive awards. State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) on the Cauvery led to the Cauvery Water Management Authority but did not end annual flare-ups.

Inefficiency: Average pendency exceeds a decade; the Almatti Dam height dispute between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and the Ravi-Beas dispute across Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan persist, signalling structural unresolved-ness.

Way forward / Conclusion:

Operationalise a permanent Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill 2019, impose statutory time-limits, and create a Dispute Resolution Committee for negotiated settlement before adjudication — restoring Article 262 as the constitutional umpire it was designed to be.