"Tamil Nadu challenges Centre's parliamentary stand on Mekedatu dam project"
Riparian Rights
legal entitlements of states/nations sharing a river, based on their position along its course (upper vs lower).
Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956
legislation under Article 262 providing for Tribunals to adjudicate inter-state water disputes.
Inter-state river water disputes occupy a unique constitutional space in Indian federalism. Entry 17 of the State List (Seventh Schedule) designates water — including irrigation, drainage, and water supplies — as a state subject, giving states primary jurisdiction over water within their borders. However, Entry 56 of the Union List empowers Parliament to regulate and develop inter-state rivers and river valleys to the extent declared expedient in the public interest. This dual structure creates an inherent tension: upstream states assert sovereign control over engineering projects within their territory, while downstream states invoke their riparian rights and the Union's supervisory role.
Article 262 of the Constitution provides the overarching framework, empowering Parliament to adjudicate inter-state water disputes and, crucially, to bar the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over such disputes if it chooses. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 operationalises this by providing for the constitution of Tribunals whose awards, once published in the Official Gazette, have the force of a decree of the Supreme Court. The Cauvery river — flowing through Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry — has been among the most contentious inter-state water disputes in independent India. The Agreements of 1892 and 1924 between the Madras Presidency and Mysore State established water-sharing arrangements and, critically, recognised the downstream state's right to object to upstream storage projects. Courts have consistently held that these agreements bind successor states.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) was constituted in 1990 and delivered its final award in 2007. The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment of February 16, 2018, upheld the award with modifications and directed the establishment of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) to oversee implementation.
The Mekedatu project is Karnataka's proposal to construct a balancing reservoir at the confluence of the Cauvery and Arkavathi rivers. Karnataka's stated rationale is twofold: to store surplus flood flows that would otherwise go unutilised, and to meet the drinking water needs of Bengaluru. Tamil Nadu's objection is equally twofold: any upstream storage structure capable of regulating the river's flow directly affects the quantity and timing of water reaching downstream farmers, and no such project can be undertaken without the consent of lower riparian states and the approval of the Central Government.
The legal architecture Tamil Nadu relies upon is layered. First, the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Karnataka vs State of Andhra Pradesh (the Alamatti dam case) held explicitly — at paragraph 100 — that Karnataka cannot construct a dam beyond a specified height "without the consent of all other riparian States as well as without the approval of the Central Government." This establishes a general principle of prior consent for upstream infrastructure affecting shared rivers. …
Inter-State water disputes have been a recurring source of tension in Indian federalism. Examine the constitutional and statutory framework for resolving such disputes, and assess its effectiveness.
Discuss the role of the Inter-State Council in promoting cooperative federalism in India. How effective has it been in resolving inter-state disputes?
With reference to the constitutional framework for inter-state river water disputes in India, consider the following statements:
1.Entry 17 of the State List designates water as a state subject, including irrigation and drainage.
2.Article 262 empowers Parliament to adjudicate inter-state water disputes and can exclude the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over such disputes.
3.Awards of Tribunals constituted under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 have the force of a decree of the Supreme Court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted in which year, and in which year did the Supreme Court deliver its landmark judgment modifying the Tribunal's final award?
Assertion (A): An upper riparian state in India cannot construct a dam beyond a specified height across a shared river without the consent of all other riparian states and the approval of the Central Government.
Reason (R): Entry 56 of the Union List empowers Parliament to regulate inter-state rivers in the public interest, giving the Union a supervisory role over water infrastructure on shared rivers.
Which of the following is correct?
With reference to the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal Award, which of the following clauses is correctly matched to its provision?
1.Clause XVIII — Each basin state may regulate waters within its territory only in a manner not inconsistent with the Tribunal's order.
2.Clause XI — Upper riparian states may unilaterally alter scheduled deliveries to downstream states without consultation.
3.Clause XX — Modifications to the Award can be achieved only through agreement among all basin states.
Select the correct answer using the codes below:
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account