Distribution of Legislative Powers over Water in India

Water governance in India reflects a constitutional balance between state authority over water resources and Union powers concerning inter-state rivers. The framework combines legislative provisions, tribunals and judicial oversight, while disputes and water stress continue to test cooperative federalism.

Constitutional Division of Powers

The Constitution allocates water-related responsibilities between the Union and the states. State authority is central to managing water within state boundaries, while Parliament has a distinct role where rivers and river valleys cross state boundaries.

• State List, Entry 17: Covers water supplies, irrigation, canals, drainage, embankments, water storage and water power. States generally legislate on these matters within their territories.
• Union List, Entry 56: Empowers Parliament to regulate and develop inter-state rivers and river valleys when Parliament declares such action by law to be in the public interest.
• Article 262: Enables Parliament to provide by law for adjudicating disputes or complaints about the use, distribution or control of waters in an inter-state river or river valley. It also allows Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts in such disputes.

This division makes water governance a federal issue: state-level decisions affect local supply and infrastructure, while inter-state river management requires coordination across jurisdictions. The constitutional framework therefore provides separate routes for ordinary water administration and disputes involving inter-state rivers.

Statutory Framework

Two central laws enacted in 1956 provide distinct mechanisms for addressing inter-state water matters. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act provides for dispute adjudication, while the River Boards Act provides for basin-level development and regulation.

• Inter-State River Water Disputes (ISRWD) Act, 1956: Enacted under Article 262, it provides a framework for resolving disputes between states over river waters and enables the Central government to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal.
• 2002 amendment: Set timelines for tribunal proceedings: a tribunal is to be established within one year after a dispute is referred, and the tribunal is to deliver its award within three years.
• 2019 Amendment Bill: Proposed a Single Permanent Tribunal with multiple benches to expedite adjudication and a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) to seek mediated agreements before a tribunal is formed. The Bill lapsed in 2024, having not been approved before the new Lok Sabha elections.
• River Boards Act, 1956: Permits the Union government to constitute River Boards for the integrated development and regulation of inter-state river basins. The boards are intended to advise states on irrigation, power generation, flood control and navigation.

No River Board has been established under the Act. State concerns about autonomy over water resources have been a significant obstacle. The two Acts thus reflect different approaches: adjudication of disputes through tribunals and cooperative basin management through boards.

Role of the Judiciary

Article 262 permits Parliament to restrict court jurisdiction over inter-state water disputes, but the judiciary has continued to address certain legal and procedural questions connected with water governance.

• Procedural and constitutional issues: The Supreme Court has intervened in matters concerning tribunal functioning and the interpretation of relevant laws.
• Dam safety: The Court has clarified that disputes strictly concerning dam safety are not necessarily “water disputes” under the ISRWD Act.
• Tribunal referral: The Court has held that when the Union government determines that a dispute cannot be settled through negotiation, constituting a tribunal is mandatory.

These principles distinguish the adjudication of water-sharing disputes from other questions that may arise around river infrastructure. They also make the Union’s role in moving an unresolved dispute from negotiation to adjudication important.

Governance Challenges and Way Forward

Water governance involves multiple central and state institutions, and inter-state river disputes can place pressure on federal relations. The challenge is not only to resolve disputes, but also to improve the information and coordination needed for decisions and implementation.

• Fragmented institutions: Numerous bodies at Union and state levels can create administrative silos and make coordinated river-basin management difficult.
• Data constraints: Problems with the reliability and availability of water data can weaken planning and complicate dispute resolution.
• Implementation delays: Delays in enforcing tribunal awards can prolong disputes and impede equitable distribution.
• Water stress: Declining per capita water availability increases the need for efficient, coordinated management.
• Cooperative federalism: Stronger coordination between states and the Union can help address inter-state disputes while respecting the division of powers.
• Shared evidence: A national data repository for river basins could support more reliable planning and informed decisions.
• Basin-wide planning: An integrated approach to river basins can link water allocation with irrigation, storage, flood control and other relevant uses.

These measures are relevant to the broader issues of inter-state water disputes, federal relations and water governance. Better coordination and shared data can support decision-making, while effective implementation remains essential to translating legal outcomes into water management.

Key Prelims Takeaways

• State List Entry 17: Covers key water matters, including irrigation and water storage.
• Union List Entry 56: Concerns regulation and development of inter-state rivers and river valleys when declared by law to be in the public interest.
• Article 262: Provides for parliamentary legislation on inter-state water-dispute adjudication and permits exclusion of court jurisdiction.
• ISRWD Act, 1956: Provides for tribunal-based adjudication; its 2002 amendment set one-year and three-year timelines.
• 2019 Amendment Bill: Proposed a permanent tribunal and DRC; it lapsed in 2024.
• River Boards Act, 1956: Provides for River Boards, but none has been established.

Recent Context

The 2021 Access (In)Equality Index ranked Goa first among states and Union Territories for access to basic amenities, healthcare and socio-economic security, with a score of 0.67. Its basic-amenities assessment included drinking water and sanitation, linking access to essential services with state-level governance.