Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Inter-state disputes are an inherent part of a federal structure like India, arising from competing claims over resources, territory, or implementation of policies. The Indian Constitution, recognizing this potential, establishes a multi-layered mechanism for their resolution. While the spirit is cooperative federalism, disputes often necessitate adjudication. Recent examples like the Cauvery water dispute and the Krishna River dispute highlight the ongoing need for effective mechanisms. This answer will explore the constitutional provisions, institutional bodies, and judicial interventions involved in settling these disputes.
Constitutional Provisions
The Constitution of India provides for mechanisms to resolve inter-state disputes through Articles 262, 263, and under the purview of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction (Article 131).
- Article 262: Deals specifically with disputes relating to the use, distribution and control of waters of inter-state rivers and river valleys. It empowers Parliament to enact a law providing for the adjudication of such disputes. (The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, was enacted under this article).
- Article 263: Provides for the establishment of an Inter-State Council to promote coordination and resolve disputes between states.
- Article 131: Confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to hear disputes between states, or between the Centre and states, or between states and the Centre.
Institutional Mechanisms
1. Inter-State Council (ISC)
Established in 1990 (revived in 2006), the ISC is a constitutional body intended to foster coordination. Its composition includes the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers of all states, and six Union Ministers. However, the ISC has met infrequently, limiting its effectiveness. The Punchhi Commission (2007) recommended strengthening the ISC and giving it a permanent secretariat.
2. Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal
Established under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, these tribunals are formed to adjudicate disputes related to inter-state rivers. The tribunals’ decisions are final and binding. Recent tribunals include those for the Ravi and Beas rivers, the Krishna river, and the Mahadayi river.
3. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 131 is a crucial mechanism. The Court has played a significant role in resolving numerous inter-state disputes, often through the appointment of commissions or committees to gather evidence and provide recommendations. The Court’s decisions have often involved complex interpretations of constitutional provisions and international law.
Recent Trends and Challenges
- Prolonged Delays: Tribunals often take decades to deliver awards, leading to continued disputes and tensions.
- Lack of Enforcement: Even after awards are given, implementation can be slow and challenging.
- Politicization: Inter-state disputes are often politicized, making it difficult to reach amicable solutions.
- Need for a Permanent Tribunal: The absence of a permanent tribunal has led to ad-hoc appointments, causing delays. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019, aims to establish a permanent tribunal, but its effectiveness remains to be seen.
Comparative Analysis of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
| Mechanism | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Inter-State Council | Promotes cooperative federalism, provides a platform for dialogue. | Infrequent meetings, lacks enforcement power. |
| Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal | Provides a legal framework for adjudication, decisions are binding. | Prolonged delays, complex procedures. |
| Supreme Court | Impartial adjudication, upholds constitutional principles. | Heavy workload, can be time-consuming. |
Conclusion
Resolving inter-state disputes is vital for maintaining the federal fabric of India. While the Constitution provides a framework, the effectiveness of the mechanisms is hampered by delays, politicization, and lack of consistent implementation. Strengthening the Inter-State Council, establishing a permanent tribunal with clear timelines, and promoting a spirit of cooperative federalism are crucial steps towards a more efficient and equitable dispute resolution system. A proactive approach focusing on prevention and early intervention, rather than solely relying on adjudication, is also essential.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.