Article 262

Article 262 of the Constitution of India establishes the constitutional basis for resolving disputes relating to the waters of inter-State rivers and river valleys. It empowers Parliament to make laws providing for the adjudication of such disputes and, if necessary, to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts, including the Supreme Court. The Article ensures that conflicts over shared water resources are addressed through a structured and specialised legal mechanism, thereby maintaining harmony and cooperation among States within the Indian Union.

Background and Constitutional Context

India’s geographical and climatic diversity gives rise to numerous rivers and river valleys that traverse multiple States. These inter-State rivers are crucial sources of irrigation, drinking water, and hydroelectric power. However, competing demands and uneven water distribution often lead to disputes among States regarding utilisation, control, and allocation.
Recognising the potential for such disputes to disrupt national unity and development, the framers of the Constitution incorporated Article 262 to provide a permanent framework for peaceful and legal settlement of water-related conflicts. The Article appears in Part XI, which deals with relations between the Union and the States, reflecting its federal significance.
The provision complements Entry 56 of the Union List (Seventh Schedule), which empowers Parliament to regulate and develop inter-State rivers and river valleys to serve the public interest.

Clause (1): Parliamentary Power to Provide for Adjudication

Clause (1) of Article 262 authorises Parliament to make laws for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint relating to the use, distribution, or control of water in inter-State rivers or river valleys.
This clause enables Parliament to:

• Establish legal and institutional mechanisms for resolving water disputes;
• Determine the procedures, authorities, and powers necessary for adjudication;
• Ensure that water conflicts are settled through a centralised and expert-driven process.

By granting this power exclusively to Parliament, the Constitution prevents States from unilaterally deciding water issues and ensures uniform national policy and adjudication mechanisms.

Clause (2): Exclusion of Judicial Jurisdiction

Clause (2) empowers Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court over disputes concerning inter-State rivers and river valleys once a law has been enacted under Clause (1).
This exclusion ensures that water disputes are resolved solely through the statutory mechanism established by Parliament, thereby avoiding prolonged litigation and judicial inconsistency. It also prevents the judicial process from being used as a political tool in sensitive inter-State matters.
However, this provision has also been subject to debate, as it limits judicial review—a cornerstone of constitutional democracy—raising questions about accountability and procedural fairness in the adjudicatory process.

Legislative Implementation: The Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956

Pursuant to Article 262, Parliament enacted the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, which remains the principal legislation governing inter-State water conflicts. The Act provides a comprehensive legal framework for the constitution and operation of specialised tribunals to adjudicate such disputes.

Key Features of the Act

• Establishment of Tribunals: When the Central Government is satisfied that a water dispute exists or is likely to arise between two or more States, it must constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal.
• Binding Nature of Decisions: The tribunal’s award, once published in the Official Gazette, is final and binding on the parties to the dispute.
• Expert Inquiry and Evidence: The tribunal conducts detailed technical and legal examinations, often relying on expert assessments and data.
• Exclusion of Judicial Review: Section 11 of the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts over disputes covered under the Act, consistent with Article 262(2).
• Amendments for Efficiency: The Act has been amended several times, most notably in 2002, to streamline procedures and introduce timelines for tribunal proceedings.

Notable Tribunals Constituted

Several tribunals have been constituted under the Act, including:

• Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, and Puducherry)
• Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana)
• Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and others)
• Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Rajasthan)
• Ravi-Beas Water Disputes Tribunal (Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan)

These tribunals have played a critical role in addressing long-standing inter-State tensions over river water sharing.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Law

Although Article 262 restricts judicial jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has, in certain instances, clarified the scope of this exclusion and the role of the judiciary in related matters:

• State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000): The Supreme Court held that disputes concerning inter-State rivers must be referred to a tribunal under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, reinforcing the constitutional mandate of Article 262.
• K. Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006): The Court reiterated that once a tribunal has been constituted under the 1956 Act, the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court under Article 131, stands excluded in respect of that dispute.
• In re: Presidential Reference on the Cauvery Water Disputes (1992): The Supreme Court clarified that while it cannot adjudicate disputes under Article 262, it retains the authority to interpret the provisions of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act itself, ensuring constitutional compliance.

These rulings reflect a nuanced balance between upholding the statutory mechanism and preserving the judiciary’s interpretive role in maintaining constitutional validity.

Significance of Article 262

Article 262 holds vital importance for India’s federal and environmental governance structure:

• Promotes Cooperative Federalism: It provides a neutral platform for States to resolve water disputes through legally defined processes rather than political confrontation.
• Ensures Expert Adjudication: By establishing specialised tribunals, it ensures that decisions are based on technical expertise and scientific assessment.
• Maintains National Harmony: It prevents inter-State conflicts from escalating into political or social unrest, safeguarding the unity of the country.
• Supports Sustainable Resource Management: The mechanism allows for long-term planning and equitable utilisation of shared water resources, critical to India’s development and ecological stability.

Limitations and Challenges

Despite its utility, Article 262 and the associated legal framework face several practical and constitutional challenges:

• Exclusion of Judicial Review: The absence of Supreme Court oversight may limit accountability and transparency in tribunal decisions.
• Delays in Adjudication: Tribunals often take years to deliver final awards due to complex technical investigations and procedural issues.
• Implementation Issues: Even after awards are issued, enforcement remains problematic, as States sometimes resist compliance.
• Need for Reform: The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019 seeks to address these issues by proposing a single, permanent tribunal with multiple benches and stricter timelines for decision-making.