Loading AI tools
1956 Act of the Parliament of India From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (IRWD Act) is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted under Article 262 of Constitution of India on the eve of reorganization of states on linguistic basis to resolve the water disputes that would arise in the use, control and distribution of an interstate river[1] or river valley.[2] Article 262 of the Indian Constitution provides a role for the union government in adjudicating conflicts surrounding interstate rivers that arise among the state/regional governments.[3] This Act has been amended subsequently, with the most recent amendment in 2002.
River waters use / harnessing is included in states jurisdiction (entry 17 of state list, Schedule 7 of Indian Constitution). However, the union government with parliament approval can make laws on regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys to the extent such water resources are directly under its control when expedient in the public interest (entry 56 of union list, Schedule 7 of Indian Constitution). Damodar Valley Corporation, NHPC, River Boards Act 1956, etc under the control of the union government, are referable to Entry 56 of the union list.[4] When union government wants to take over an interstate river project under its control by law (as provided in the constitution) from states per entry 56 of the union list, it has to take the approval of the riparian states' legislature assemblies before passing such bill in the Parliament per Article 252 of the constitution. When public interest is served, President may also establish an interstate council as per Article 263 to inquire and recommend the dispute that has arisen between the states of India.
IRWD Act (section 2c2) validates the previous agreements (if any) among the basin states to harness the water of an interstate river/ river valley. This act is confined to states of India and not applicable to union territories. Only concerned state governments are entitled to participate in the tribunal adjudication and non-government entities are not permitted.
Any river water sharing treaty made with other countries, has to be ratified by the Parliament per Article 253 after deciding the share of the Indian riparian states per Article 262 to make the treaty constitutionally valid or enforceable by the judiciary as India follows dualist theory for the implementation of international treaties/laws. The Indian government has signed Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, Ganga water sharing treaty with Bangladesh, etc. without the ratification by the Parliament and the consent of the concerned riparian states per Article 252.
The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Parliament of India | |
| |
Citation | Act No. 33 of 1956 |
Enacted by | Parliament of India |
Assented to | 28 August 1956 |
IRWD Act is applicable only to interstate rivers/river valleys. An action of one state should affect the interests of one or more other states. Then only water dispute is deemed to have arisen under IRWD Act (section 3). It can be divided into two independent parts for clarity purpose in understanding the techno-legal application of the IRWD Act.
A downstream state's action can affect the upstream state's interest only in one case. i.e. when a downstream state is building a dam/barrage near its state boundary and submerging the territory of an upstream state on permanent/temporary basis. Other than this action, no other action of a downstream state could affect the upstream state's interest which they have been using for economic, ecological and spiritual/ religious aspects. The meaning of the word ‘interest’ in this context is concern/importance/significance/relevance / consequence of losing the prevailing water use or purpose.
Whereas all the actions of an upstream state to use or control or distribute the water of an interstate river can affect the downstream states in one way or other. The following are some examples but not complete:
Generally, river water is transferred to water deficit areas for use after creating the infrastructure for its storage (water reservoirs) and distribution network (canals, pipelines, groundwater charging, etc.). All these acts fall under the river water distribution and control category under IRWD Act. All the above actions of an upstream state are legal causes of water dispute to the downstream states since their existing interests are affected as given below:
The use or control or distribution of river water in an upstream state is invariably denial of prevailing use/purpose in the downstream state as it is altering the natural flow regime of river water with respect to quantity, quality and time of availability in downstream states. Also dam failures in upstream states can create flash floods or further dam failures in downstream states causing unprecedented property damage and loss of human lives.[9] IRWD Act (section 3) clearly stipulates that mere anticipation of a riparian state actions which can affect other riparian state interests is enough to raise interstate water dispute.
The activities of an upstream state without affecting downstream states' interests are peak flood control measures by impounding the flood waters only (not base flows) in 100% or more capacity storage reservoirs for use without affecting water quality appreciably and run-off hydropower generation took up in its territory.
Whenever the riparian states are not able to reach amicable agreements on their own in sharing of interstate river waters, section 4 of the IRWD Act provides a dispute resolution process in the form of a Tribunal.[10] As per section 5.2 of the Act, the tribunal shall not only adjudicate but also investigate the matters referred to it by the union government and forward a report setting out the facts with its decisions. It implies that the tribunal's responsibility is not limited to adjudication of issues raised by the concerned states and also the investigation of other aspects which are in the public domain such as water pollution, salt export requirement, water quality deterioration, flood control, sustainability of river basin productivity & its ecology, environmental flow requirements, climate change effects, etc.[11] When the tribunal final verdict issued based on the deliberations on the draft verdict is accepted by the union government and notified in the official gazette, the verdict becomes law and binding on the states and union government for implementation. In case the constitutional rights of states are ingressed upon by the tribunal award in any manner, the union government is obliged to take the consent of parliament and all riparian states under Article 252 of the constitution before publishing the tribunal awards in the official gazette.[12] When pronounced in the ambit of IRWD Act and the Indian constitution, the tribunal's verdict after its publication in the official gazette is equivalent to Supreme Court verdict as per section 6 of IRWD Act.
This amendment (second para of section 4 (1) of the Act) specifically does not permit altering the prevailing tribunal verdicts issued before the year 2002 (i.e. but not the tribunal awards issued after the year 2002).[2] Thus this amendment bars the tribunals to give any time period/validity for constituting a new tribunal. This is to keep provision to resolve freshwater disputes which were not addressed by earlier tribunals/ agreements as and when they surface.
A permanent water dispute tribunal, with its members from sitting/retired judges of Supreme Court or High courts (maximum five including chairman and vice chairman) and technical experts (maximum three), is proposed to resolve the growing number of interstate river water disputes expeditiously.[13][14] A tribunal bench shall have one technical expert member and one judicial member with the chairman or vice chairman out of the members of the permanent water dispute tribunal.
Section 5 (2a) of the amended Act mandated that the tribunal report shall also prescribe for the distribution of water among the states during distress situations arising from a shortage in river water availability.
The Union government is contemplating bringing a new act in place of the River Boards Act, 1956 which is presently purely an advisory body of the union government. The new bill called "River basin Management Bill" would constitute River Basin Organisations for each interstate river basin with a two-tier structure. The lower tier 'Executive Board' of a river basin is represented by various relevant faculties from each riparian state including the union government. The top tier called the 'Governing Council' of a river basin will have all chief ministers of riparian states as its members to arrive at unanimous decisions. In case of no consensus decision, the dispute would be referred to the tribunal formed under Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956.[15]
Inter-State River Water Disputes Amendment Bill, 2019 : The Inter-State River Water Disputes Amendment Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on 25 July 2019 by the minister of Jal Shakti, Mr.Gajendra Singh Shekhawat. It amends the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. The Act provides for the adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-state rivers and river valleys.
Parliament passed the Dams Safety Act, 2021 under article 256 to monitor the safety of aging dams located on all rivers of India.[16] As it is covering all the rivers in India instead of interstate rivers, a petition was filed in High Court against such act challenging its constitutional validity.[17]
Till now three tribunal awards are notified in official gazette by the Government of India.[18] These are water dispute tribunals allocating river water use by the riparian states for Krishna (tribunal 1),[19] Godavari[19] and Narmada[19] rivers. All these tribunal awards were issued before the year 2002 which cannot be altered by the new tribunals. The tribunals formed on sharing water of Ravi & Beas rivers, Cauvery / Kaveri river,[20] Vamsadhara River,[21] Mahadayi / Mandovi River[22] and Krishna River (tribunal 2 ) are either yet to pronounce the verdicts or the issued verdicts are to be accepted by the Government of India.
Cauvery water disputes tribunal order was notified by the GoI on 20 February 2013 and later Supreme Court changed the tribunal order altering water allocations.[23][24]
The Vamsadhara tribunal pronounced its final verdict in September 2017 and permitted AP state to construct the side weir at Katragedda and Neradi barrage.[25]
In March 2018, Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal is formed under the direction of the Supreme Court to adjudicate water sharing dispute between Odisha and Chhattisgarh states.[26]
The Mahadayi Water Tribunal pronounced its final verdict in August 2018 and permitted Karnataka state to use water outside the basin for drinking water use.[27] The tribunal has not vacated the stay order on the execution of works by Karnataka till the verdict is notified by a gazette order by the Union.
Under Section 6A of this Act, central government may frame a scheme or schemes to give effect to the decision of a tribunal. Each scheme has a provision to establish an authority for the implementation of a tribunal verdict. However, every scheme and all its regulations shall be approved by the parliament. When a tribunal verdict, after formally gazetted by the union government, stipulates to establish the verdict implementation authority/board, the same shall be complied by the union government as the tribunal verdict is equal to Supreme Court verdict. As per Articles 53 & 142 of the constitution, it is the duty of the President to enforce the tribunal/supreme court order/verdict without time delay till the Parliament, under Section 6A of this Act, decides against or makes modifications to the already established implementation board/authority.[28]
In the case of the Cauvery River basin, SC directed the GoI to set up a temporary Supervisory Committee to implement the tribunal order till the constitution of the Cauvery Management Board by GoI. GoI established the said temporary Supervisory Committee on 22 May 2013.[29] In the case of Babli barrage dispute, SC itself constituted the Supervisory Committee to implement the water sharing agreement between Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh in middle Godavari sub-basin.[30]
After nearly 7 years, the KRMB and Godavari River Management Board are notified by the central govt as autonomous bodies and their project-wise functions are stipulated for implementation.[31]
Under Section 9A of this Act, the central government shall maintain a data bank and information system at the national level for each river basin. State governments shall provide all the data regarding water resources, land, agriculture and matters related thereto as requested by the central government. The central government is also vested with powers to verify the data supplied by the state governments. However, many state governments, e.g., Maharashtra, Chattishgarh, etc have not been furnishing the land use data in their states (Tables 14 to 16 of Integrated Hydrological Data Book, 2012) and Central Water Commission of MoWR is not pursuing the matter earnestly to get the data which is vital in water resources planning.[32]
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.