Major Inter-State Water Disputes (ISWD) in India

Major Inter-State Water Disputes (ISWD) in India

UPSC Prelims GS Paper 1 and Mains GS Paper 2 & 3 (Polity – Federalism, Governance, Geography – Resources & Infrastructure).

Introduction

India’s unique geography—with its mighty rivers flowing across state borders—makes inter-state water disputes inevitable. Rapid population growth, agricultural dependence, and periodic droughts add pressure to already tense water-sharing issues. Recent disputes like Mahanadi (Odisha vs. Chhattisgarh), Krishna (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana), and Mahadayi (Goa, Karnataka, Maharashtra) highlight both the legal processes and the challenges of India’s water federalism.

Constitutional and Legal Mechanisms

• State & Union List: Water is a State subject (Entry 17), but inter-state river regulation is a Union power (Entry 56).
• Article 262: Allows Parliament to make laws for the adjudication of water disputes and to bar courts from intervening.
• ISRWD Act, 1956: Provides for setting up tribunals to resolve these disputes. Amendments now require speedy formation (within 1 year) and time-bound verdicts (3 years), but delays are still common.
• River Board Act, 1956: Allows for river boards, but none have been set up till now.

Major Inter-State Water Tribunals: Status and Updates

Case Example: Mahanadi Water Dispute (2023-2025)

Odisha has accused Chhattisgarh of unilaterally opening gates at Kalma Barrage, releasing water during the non-monsoon period, disrupting supply to Odisha’s lower catchment, and harming Rabi crops and drinking water access. The absence of a formal agreement between the two states on Mahanadi water sharing and lack of coordinated basin management enhances such conflicts.

Why Do Disputes Persist?

• Delayed Tribunals: Despite legal mandates, tribunals often take many years to resolve disputes (e.g., Godavari, Cauvery).
• Lack of Reliable Data: States often mistrust each other’s water flow and consumption data.
• Politicisation: Water sharing is used as a political tool, impeding solutions and fueling regionalism.
• Limited Technical Inputs: Tribunals are often judiciary-centric, lacking multidisciplinary technical expertise.
• Absence of Agreements: Many disputes occur due to no or poorly enforced inter-state river agreements.

Solutions and Reform Suggestions

• Consensus and Cooperation: Activate the Inter-State Council (Article 263) and encourage consensus-driven solutions.
• Water Data Management: Centralized, scientifically verifiable hydrological data and transparent sharing.
• Efficient Tribunals: Fast-track, multidisciplinary tribunals with time-bound, enforceable verdicts and technical input.
• River Basin Agencies: Integrated management for both surface and groundwater.
• Water Conservation: Promote efficient irrigation, water harvesting, and demand management.
• Political Will: Reduce politicisation and foster a cooperative, non-confrontational approach.

Conclusion

Durable solutions to India’s inter-state water disputes require not just strong laws but also scientific water management, political maturity, and a commitment to sharing this critical resource equitably. Moving disputes from confrontation toward consensus is the key to ensuring that water remains a source of life, not conflict, in India’s federal democracy.