Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
INTER WATER STATE DISPUTE (WHAT ARE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISONS (4+2…
INTER WATER STATE DISPUTE
INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL STYATUS OF WATER
WATER ALSO IN UNION LIST ENTRY 56:
POWER WRT
REGULATION & DEVELOPMENT OF INTERSTATE RIVERS & INTERSTATE VALLEYS
WATER: A STATE LIST SUBJECT ENTRY 17:
DEALS WITH USE & CONSUMPTION OF WATER... CREATION FOR IRRIGATION , DAMS
ACTION OF UNION GOVERMENT
WHAT SHOULD RATHER HAVE DONE?
RATHER UNION GOVT HAS POWER UNDER UNION LIST TO DECLARE INTERSTATE RIVERS AS STRATEGIC RESOURCE: AND PROACTIVELY DEAL WITH INTERSTATE RIVER BASINS AS DONE IN AUSTRALIA
HOW INDIA HAS TACKLED THE DISPUTES?
SO GOVT UNDER ITS POWER
ART 262
ENACTED INTERSTATE RIVERS DISPUTE ACT 1956
INTERSTATE RIVER DISPUTE TO BE RESOLVED BY MAKING A TRIBUNAL... WHOSE AWARD WILL BE FINAL (NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW BY SC)
GIVES LIST OF DISPUTE WHICH TO BE RESOLVED BY TRIBUNAL
AND ALSO WHICH ARE TO BE NOT RESOLVED UNDER THE ACT .. SO MULLAPERIYAR DAM ISSUE DIRECTLY HANDLED BY SUPREME COURT
IN INDIA MOST OF THE MAJOR RIVERS ARE INTERSTATE
.. SO FAR UNION GOVT. HAS PLAYED A BALANCING ROLE B/W COMPETING STATES OF RIVER...
INTERVENED AS PER STATE LIST SUBJECT
CONTEXT OF DISPUTES
ACC. TO MARK TWAIN
"WHISKY IS TO DRINK & WATER IS TO FIGHT"... IT IS PREDICTED THAT FUTURE WARS WILL WARS FOR WATER
IN INDIA THERE PLENTY OF DISPUTE REGARDING SHARING OF INTERSTATE RIVER BASIN
WHAT ARE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISONS
(4+2 OPTIONS)
ART131:
ORIGNAL JURISDICTION OF SC.. ACTING AS FEDERAL COURT.. SC HAS THIS ROLE IN SOLVING INTERSTATE WATER DISPUTES
BUT..
ART136
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
BUT DESPITE ART262. SC STILL INTERVENES BY SLP
IDEALLY WHICH SHOULD SC DISCOURAGE: LIKE US SUPREME COURT TO REACH A POLITICALLY NEGOTAITED SOLUTION
ACC. TO SC TRIBUNAL AWARD IS FINAL(IT MAY DONT HAVE ORIGNAL JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE) BUT SC HAS POWER TO REVIEW THE PROCESS OF TRIBUNAL BY WHICH AWARD HAS COME UP
ART 262:
PARLIAMENT TO ENACT LAW FOR SETTLEMENT OF INTER STATE WATER DISPUTE
AS IN 1956 UNION GOVT UNDER ITS POWER BY ART 262 ENACTED INTERSTATE WATER DISPUTE ACT 1956 ...
BY WHICH SC JURISDICTION WAS EXCLUDED
.
CONS. U/A 262 ALLOWED JUDICIARY MAY BE EXCLUDED BECOZ JUDICIARY MAKE LOO ISSUE FROM LEGALISTIC PERSPECTIVE.
AND WATER IS EMOTIVE.. SENSITIVE ISSUE WHICH REQUIRES POLITICAL CONSENSUS
ART263
PRESIDENT BY EXECUTIVE ORDER
(SO MUCH EASE THAT EVEN LEGISLATION IS NOT REQUIRED) CAN CREATE A INTERSTATE COUNCIL...
CONS. ENVISAGED SUCH A EASY WAY TO SETTLE SUCH FEDERAL DISPUTES LIKE INTERSTATE RIVER, EVEN OFFICE OF GOVERNOR
BUT BECOZ POLITICAL CALCULATION ART 263 REMAINS LEAST USED METHOD...
AND INTER STATE RIVER DISPUTE REMAINS UNRESOLVED...... IT WAS FIRST CONSTITUTED DURING V.P SINGH GOVT.. EVEN NOT UTILISED
EXPERT CORNER
BECOZ OF ART CONFLICT 136 & 262:
FALI S NARIMAN SUGGEST
: IT IS BETTER TO RESTORE 1956 ORDER... BY REPEALING INTERSTATE RIVER DISPUTE ACT
AS ANYWAY EVEN AFTER YEARS OF NEGOTIATION IN TRIBUNAL CASE FINALLY REACHES TO SC UNDER ART136 AND PROCESS AGIN TAKES TIME.. SO WASTAGE OF RESOURCES
EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
ZONAL COUNCILS:CREATED WITH STATE REORG. ACT 1956.. WITH A VIEW TO SOLVE INTERSTATE RIVER DISPUTES
ZONAL COUNCIL ARE TO BE HEADE BY HOMEMINISTER(1ST WHO HEADED WAS GOVINDVALLABH PANT)
RIVERS BOARDS ACT 1956
WITH A PROACTIVE VISION: SO THAT RIVER DISPUTE DON'T EMERGE.... RIVER BOARDS TO BE CONSTITUED FOR JOINT PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT.. INVOLVING INTERSTATE RIVERS
ANALYSIS OF TRIBUNAL SYSTEM
IN CASE OF ANY DISPUTE STATES MUST APPROACH UNION GOVT.
FORMATION OF TRIBUNAL
INITIALLY THERE WAS NO TIME LIMIT WITHIN WHICH UNION GOVT. TO COMPLETE POLITICAL NEGOTIATION & CONSTITUTE
TRIBUNAL :arrow_double_down:
SO GOVT. TOOK 20 YEARS TO FORM TRIBUNAL FOR KAVERI DISPUTE.. & THAT TOO WITH SC INTERVENTION :arrow_double_down:
:arrow_forward:HENCE SINCE 2002 SC ORDERED TRIBUNAL TO BE CONSTITUTED WITHIN ONE YEAR
AWARD OF TRIBUNAL
:arrow_double_down: INITIALLY THERE WAS NO TIME FRAME WITHIN WHICH TRIBUNAL HAS TO GIVE AWARD
ALSO ACT MANDATES GOVT. TO ESTD. A DATA(RAINFALL, WATER AVILABILITY) BANK FOR SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF CASE.. NOT MADE BY GOVT...
SO TRIBUNAL TOOK 17 YEARS TO GIVE THE AWARD & THAT WITH SC INTERVENTION :arrow_double_down:
HENCE SC DIRECTED TRIBUNAL AWARD IN 3 YEARS & IN EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS IN 5 YEARS
IMPLEMENTATIONTION OF AWARD
TRIBUNAL GAVE AWARD IN 2007(MAX TIME.).. BUT
AWARD WILL BE IMPLEMENTED WHEN GOVT. ISSUES IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE
WHICH GOVT. DIDN'T .. GAIN SC INTERVENED.. FINALLY GOVT ISSUES IN GAZETTE BUT TILL NOW NOT IMPLMENTED
SIGNALLING INDIA A SOFT STATE & SIGNALS LACK OF POLITICAL WILL TO RESOLVE INTERSTATE RIVER ISSUES
1ST GOVT. NOT TAKING ISSUE UNDER UNION LIST: 56
ND TRIBUNAL WORKING ABOVE
COMPOSITION OF TRIBUNAL
GOVT. CAN REQUEST CJI.. TO CONSTITUTE A 3 JUDGE TRIBUNAL
1 JUDGE FROM SC
OTHER TWO FROM SC OR HC
A PERMANENT TRIBUNAL IS PROPOSED: TO BE HEADED BY RETIRED SC AS CHAIRMAN OF TRIBUNAL
PUNCHI COMMISSION SUGGESTED .. IT SHOULD BE MULTIDISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL.. COMPRISING MEMBERS OF CIVIL SOCIETY.. SOCIAL SCIENTISTS, ENVIRONMENTALIST
CASESTUDIES
TRIBUNAL FAILED
KAVERI AWARD ..
REFLECTED IEFFICENCY OF TRIBUNAL SYSTEM BECOZ OF INORDINATE DELAY & GOVT NOT IMPLEMENTING THE DECISION
BUT BECOZ OF SC.. THERE HAS BEEN RULES SET FOR TRIBUNAL SYSTEM
.
.
YAMUNA- SATLUJ CANAL LINK
AFTER HARYANA PUNJAB REORG.... HARYANA GOVT. GAVE MONEY TO PUNJAB FOR CONSTRUCTION ON ITS SIDES.. AFTER FEW YEARS PUNJAB UNILATERALLY REVOKED ALL AGREEMENT
SC IN ADVISORY JURISDICTION HELD THAT ACT OF PUNJAB GOVT. IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL..
IN BOTH CASE KARNATKA & OUNJAB REFUSED TO ADDRESS THE DIRECTIVE LAID BY SUPREMCOURT
TRIBUNAL SUCESSFUL
GODAVARI
SUCCESSFUL BECOZ OF POSITIVE ROLE PLAYED BY UNION GOVT.
KRISHNA
IST TRIBUNAL AWARD REJECTED BY ALL PARTIES BUT 2ND ACCEPTED BY ALL.. BUT ISSUE NOW AGAIN ERUPTED BECOZ OF TELENGANA COMING UP
NARMADA
SOLVED AS PARTIES REACHED TO SOLN THAN COMMUNICATED TO TRIBUNAL
REFORMS IN TRIBUNAL SYSTEM
THE LACUNAS AND RECOMMDATION ABOVE
HAVE BEEN INCOORPORATED IN INTER-STATE WATER DISPUTE (AMENDMENT BILL)2017
DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMISSION TO BE FORMED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE AMICABLY
DRC HAVE TO SUBMIIT IT REPORT WITH IN 1 YEAR + 6 MONTHS EXTENDED
IF ISSUE IS NOT RESOVED BY THE DRC THAN IT GOES TO A PERMANENT TRIBUNAL
THAT HAS TO GIVE DECISION IN 2+1 YEARS
NATAIONAL DATA BANK OF ALL RIVER TO BE MAINTAINED
ROAD AHEAD: SOLUTION
INSPITE RESORTING TO PRE 1956 ORDER OR SATY WITH PRESENT MODEL OR USING WAY OF INTERSTATE COUNCIL OR ZONAL COUNCIL
ISSUE REMAINS OF IMPLEMENTING THE AWARD
TOP-DOWN PRESPECTIVE- LEGALISTIC, BUREAUCRATIC SOLN WILL NOT WORK
.. SO..
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION:
SOLN TO BE SOCIALLY , ECONOMICALLY, POLITICALLY& ENVIRONMENTALLY JUST
WE HAVE TO ADDRESS TO WATER FROM MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVE:LIFE, AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRIES, AQUATIC LIFE
A PARTICIPATORY, DEMOCRATIC, INCLUSIVE PROCESS IS REQUIRED