The constitution has used the term ‘union of states’ instead of ‘federation’ to describe India; however in essence India follows a federal system of government. The federal system helps in ensuring ‘unity and diversity’ and achieving common national goals between the central and state government. Federalism helps in ensuring harmonious and cordial relations between centre and states. 

However, successful functioning of the federal system also requires inter – state comity along with centre – state cooperation. The importance of such Inter state cooperation has been recognised by the constitution by listing various provisions dealing with the same; some examples include Inter state council, adjudication of inter state water disputes.  Parliament has also promoted Inter – state relations by providing for river boards, zonal councils etc. In the following sections, we will study in detail the provisions related to ensuring smooth functioning of inter – state relations. 

Constitutional Provisions for Strengthening Inter-State Relations in India

Constitutional provisions to ensure smooth functioning of inter- state relations are as follows:

1. Adjudication of Inter-state water disputes.
2. Coordination through Inter-state councils.
3. Mutual recognition of public acts, records and judicial proceedings.
4. Freedom of inter-state trade, commerce and intercourse.

Inter-State Water Disputes in India: Challenges and Historical Context

Water is an important resource for mankind. Great civilisations have been founded on the banks of rivers for example the Egyptian civilisation on the river Nile, the Mesopotamian civilisation on the Tigris and the Euphrates, the Indian civilisation on the Indus and the Chinese civilisation on the Hwange He. Great civilisations have also perished due to scarcity of water – e.g., the Sumerian civilisation (Mesopotamia), which was destroyed because of salt buildup in the soil. 

India has 14 major rivers, which are all inter-State rivers. Despite constitutional and legal provisions provided for resolution of water disputes, Inter – State river disputes have been a continuous challenge to the federal system of governance in India. These conflicts are especially prolonged as these are rooted in imprecise distribution of power by constitution (under 7th schedule) related to water, historical – geographical reasons, and institutional ambiguities. 

Following are the reasons due to which inter-state river dispute continues to persist despite various efforts at resolution:

• Historical origin of disputes: 
  • Colonial rule: Before Independence India comprised British India and princely states which were under the overall paramountcy of the British government. During the time government power was highly centralised and the Secretary of state under Government of India act, 1919 and 1935 was empowered to make final and binding decisions with regards to water utilisation. 
  • Top-down approach: The provinces did not possess the authority to make decisions. This top down approach through which river disputes were resolved has been considered a major reason for continuation of inter-state river disputes post independence.

• • Post – Independence State reorganisation: 
    • State Reorganisation Act: After independence political integration of over 570 princely states took place in India. Later in 1956 the State reorganisation act resulted in 14 states and six union territories. 
    • Challenges: The boundaries of Indian states have continued to evolve since 1956 based on cultural demands and political factors. However, these changing borders have complicated existing agreements which determined jurisdiction and resource sharing between states. For example; Cauvery dispute has been a source of serious conflict between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. 
    • Colonial agreements: The pre – Independence agreement which governs present river sharing between states was based on the area occupied by Mysuru Kingdom and Madras presidency. The areas of South Canara previously under Madras presidency, Coorg Province which were later merged with Karnataka have not been accounted to calculate the right of Karnataka’s water share. 
    • Inconclusive negotiations: Despite decades of negotiation no proper resolution has been reached and despite orders of tribunals and courts the states continue to file review petitions and seek renegotiation of the agreement.
  • Provision in Seventh schedule: 
    • Jurisdictional ambiguity: The provision listed in the constitution creates federal – jurisdictional ambiguity and makes resolution of inter – state river disputes more difficult. The Seventh Schedule has distinguished between use of Water within the state and regulation of Inter state river disputes. The Union Parliament has been given the power to regulate interstate river disputes by formulating laws and mechanisms. For example, the Parliament has formulated the river boards act, Inter state river disputes act, 1956 etc. Though the Union frames laws with regards to inter state river disputes, legislative power related to water supply, irrigation and canals etc. are retained by the states. 
    • Impact: This indefinite or vague distribution of power between states and the centre has led to constitutional and legislative mechanisms which further intensify the already protracted river dispute between states.

• Institutional ambiguity: There is an ambiguity over which body is the ultimate authority for adjudication of Inter-State river disputes. 

• Water dispute tribunals: Article 262 has clearly empowered Parliament to provide for adjudication of disputes related to inter-state river disputes. Under Article 262 Inter-State river disputes act, 1956 was enacted which provided for Tribunals as the final authority for adjudication on inter-state river disputes. The awards granted by Tribunals are final and binding and carry the same force as an order of the Supreme court. 

• Role of the Supreme Court: Despite the mentioned provision, the Supreme court has allowed appeals against the orders of Tribunals under Article 136 of the constitution (which provides for Special leave petition). This has led to the Supreme Court along with Tribunals to be the final authority for adjudication of Inter State water disputes. This provision of appeal against tribunal order has not only undermined their authority but also led to extreme delays in solving such disputes between the states. 
• Growing water scarcity: The increasing scarcity of water due to overutilization, pollution and climate change has led to the issue of water getting “securitized”. Various state political parties have made water sharing a major issue in their election manifesto. The existing water crisis has compounded in states where the Green revolution was successful due to indiscriminate use of ground water  for irrigation purposes.

Now we will discuss in detail the present constitutional and other provisions related to Inter state river water disputes in India .