Syllabus: GS2/Governance
Context
- The Supreme Court recently termed Punjab’s de-notification of land acquired for the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal an act of “high-handedness”.
About
- The court reminded Punjab of its 2017 order to maintain status quo on canal-related land and property.
- The SYL canal was conceptualised for the effective allocation of water from the Ravi and Beas rivers.
- The project envisaged a 214-km canal, of which 122 km was to be constructed in Punjab and 92 km in Haryana.
Background of the Dispute:
- 1981 Agreement: Between Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan for sharing Ravi-Beas waters; SYL canal was a key part.
- 1996 Suit: Haryana filed a case seeking completion of the canal.
- 2002 Verdict: Supreme Court ruled in favor of Haryana; Punjab was directed to complete its share.
- 2004 Action: Punjab passed the Termination of Agreements Act, halting construction unilaterally.
- 2016 Ruling: A Constitution Bench struck down Punjab’s 2004 Act as unconstitutional.
Recent Court Directions:
- The apex court appointed Union Home Secretary, Punjab Chief Secretary, and DGP Punjab as Receivers to oversee land-related issues.
- It urged Punjab, Haryana, and the Centre to work towards a mutually agreeable solution.
- If unresolved, the matter will be listed again on August 13.
Dispute Resolution Mechanism for Inter-State Water Sharing in India
- Constitutional Provisions: Article 262 of the Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to legislate for adjudication of inter-state river water disputes.
- Bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court in such matters if a law is made under this provision.
- Parliament enacted the below-mentioned Acts according to Article 262 of the Indian Constitution:
- River Board Act, 1956: The Act empowered the Central Government to establish boards for Interstate Rivers and river valleys in consultation with State Governments. However, no board has been created to date.
- Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956: If the State Government(s) approach the Central Government for the constitution of the Tribunal, the Centre may form a Tribunal after trying to resolve the dispute through consultations.
- The Supreme Court shall not question the Award or formula given by the Tribunal but it can question the working of the Tribunal.
The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 was amended in 2002, to include the major recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission.
- The Tribunal has to be constituted within a year of getting the request.
- The tribunal must give the award within the maximum period of 5 years.
- The Tribunal award is not immediately implemented and the concerned parties may seek clarification within 3 months of the award.
- Tribunal Awards will have the same force as the order or decree of the Supreme Court. The award is final and beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Issues with Inter-State River Disputes Tribunals
- Prolonged Proceedings and Delays: Tribunal decisions often take decades, defeating the objective of timely resolution.
- The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal took nearly 17 years (1990–2007) to deliver its final award.
- Even after a decision, implementation lags due to lack of enforcement mechanisms.
- Judicial Review: Although the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act declares tribunal decisions as final, States or affected parties approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) and Article 32, by invoking Article 21 (Right to Life).
- Tribunal Composition Lacks Multidisciplinarity: Tribunals are typically headed by retired or sitting judges.
- It leads to overreliance on judicial reasoning instead of technical-scientific evaluation.
- Inadequate and Non-Transparent Water Data: No centralized or publicly accessible repository of authoritative water flow and usage data.
- States often withhold or manipulate data to suit their legal arguments.
- Complex Federal Structure and Procedural Hurdles: Overlapping roles of state and central agencies lead to bureaucratic red tape.
Recent and Proposed Reforms:
- Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (Pending in Parliament):
- Proposes permanent tribunal with time-bound adjudication.
- Creates a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) for pre-tribunal negotiation.
- The tribunal must Include technical experts (engineers, hydrologists, ecologists) as permanent members.
- An independent water data authority can be established under the Central Water Commission (CWC).
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Negotiations and Mediation by neutral parties or the Centre can resolve disputes effectively.
Source: TH