"Bihar and Jharkhand Sign MoU Resolving 25-Year Sone River Water Dispute"
Million Acre-Feet (MAF)
a unit of water volume equal to one million acre-feet, used to measure river water allocations in inter-state agreements.
Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (ISRWDA)
Parliament's law under Article 262 providing for tribunal-based adjudication of inter-state river water disputes.
Inter-state river water disputes are among the most persistent governance challenges in India's federal structure. Water is listed under Entry 17 of the State List (Seventh Schedule), making it primarily a state subject. However, Entry 56 of the Union List empowers Parliament to regulate inter-state rivers when declared expedient in the public interest. This constitutional tension between state sovereignty over water and Union oversight of shared rivers is the root cause of most inter-state disputes.
Article 262 of the Constitution addresses this tension directly. It empowers Parliament to provide for the adjudication of disputes relating to the use, distribution, or control of inter-state river waters. Crucially, it also bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts in such matters. Parliament enacted the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act (ISRWDA), 1956 under this authority. Under this Act, the Union Government can constitute a tribunal when a state makes a request and negotiations fail. Tribunal awards, once published in the Official Gazette, carry the force of a Supreme Court decree.
Despite this statutory framework, tribunals have proved slow and adversarial. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal took 17 years to deliver its award. This delay has pushed states and the Centre toward negotiated, MoU-based settlements as a faster alternative. Such agreements reflect the broader principle of cooperative federalism, where states resolve shared problems through dialogue rather than litigation.
The ISRWDA, 1956 lays down a clear procedure. A state government requests the Union Government to refer a dispute to a tribunal. The Union must first attempt resolution through negotiation. Only if negotiations fail does it constitute a tribunal. Once constituted, a tribunal's award is binding and published in the Official Gazette. However, implementation has often lagged even after awards, as seen in the Cauvery dispute.
The constitutional design also provides Article 263, which allows for an Inter-State Council (ISC) to coordinate between states and the Centre. The ISC has emerged as a preferred forum for negotiated settlements. The Central Water Commission (CWC), a technical body under the Ministry of Jal Shakti, plays a critical supporting role. It provides hydrological studies, dam-height specifications, and volumetric assessments that give both parties a neutral technical basis for negotiation. …
Recently, linking of which of the following rivers was undertaken?
Which one of the following has been constituted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986?
Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional framework for inter-state river water disputes in India:
1.Water is listed under Entry 17 of the State List, making it primarily a state subject.
2.Article 262 empowers Parliament to adjudicate inter-state river water disputes and bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such matters.
3.Tribunal awards under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, once published in the Official Gazette, have the force of a decree of the Supreme Court.
4.Article 263 provides for the constitution of an Inter-State Council to adjudicate water disputes.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Consider the following statements about the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act (ISRWDA), 1956:
1.It was enacted by Parliament under the authority of Article 262 of the Constitution.
2.A state government can directly approach the Supreme Court if the Union Government refuses to constitute a tribunal.
3.The Union Government must first attempt resolution through negotiation before constituting a tribunal.
4.A tribunal's award, once published in the Official Gazette, is binding on all parties.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Consider the following statements about MoU-based inter-state water settlements compared to tribunal awards under the ISRWDA, 1956:
1.MoU-based settlements are generally faster to conclude than tribunal proceedings.
2.Tribunal awards, once gazetted, are enforceable as Supreme Court decrees; MoUs do not carry equivalent statutory enforceability.
3.MoU-based settlements require ratification by Parliament to become legally binding.
4.The Inter-State Council can convert an MoU into a tribunal award if one party later disputes the terms.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
With reference to the Sone River water dispute between Bihar and Jharkhand, consider the following pairs:
Allocation / Recipient
1.5.75 MAF — Bihar
2.2.00 MAF — Jharkhand
3.7.75 MAF — Undivided Bihar (under 1973 Bansagar Agreement)
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?
Which of the following correctly describes the role of the Central Water Commission (CWC) in inter-state river water disputes?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account