There is a direct but special provision by virtue of the Article 262. This may be
considered within the scope of the Entry 56 but has special status. The Article is
concerned about resolution of interstate river water disputes. This provides for
barring the jurisdiction of the courts, including that of the Supreme Court.
2
The public discourse and debates do not often go beyond these provisions while
discussing federal governance of water in India. There are several other provisions
through which the Centre works with states on water resources development.
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, are some such acts that draw from various provisions of the
Constitution and impact water resources development indirectly. There are also
other provisions that are gaining significance with the changing development priorities. For instance, the Entry 24 in the Union List about inland waterways is now
rigorously being pursued with the Inland Waterways Authority of India Act of 1985
and the National Waterways Act, 2016 (Chokkakula et al 2020).
However, these are often not taken into account while considering federal water
governance arrangements, if any. Instead, the literature and discourse have settled
to the following understanding:
(a) Water governance is primarily the states’ domain, and water resources development strategies are set and pursued by state governments.
(b) The Centre’s role is essentially restricted to interstate river water and largely
focused on enabling interstate river water dispute resolution.
(c) The Centre’s role extends to exercising influence through financial transfers.
The Centre provides financial assistance to states through various forms of
specific-purpose IGFTs, ostensibly to promote progressive policies and
strategies in water governance. The IGFTs flow in various forms including
Central Sector Schemes (CSs), Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSSs) and
National Projects (NPs).
In conversations about federal water governance, it is widely presumed as well
as assumed that water is a state subject, even though subject to the union’s powers
under the Entry 56. The concentration of executive power with the states fortifies
these notions. These conversations too invariably take place in the background of
interstate river water disputes and their resolution. The episodes of dispute escalation often lead to an impasse or a stalemate, producing awkward situations. These
conditions are most familiar in the long-running and intractable disputes like the
Cauvery and Ravi–Beas. The Centre and other federal institutions—including the
2
Article 262. Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of interstate rivers or river valleys.
(1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to
the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any interstate river or river valley.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the
Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or
complaint as is referred to in clause (1).
170
S. Chokkakula and P. Prajapati
considered within the scope of the Entry 56 but has special status. The Article is
concerned about resolution of interstate river water disputes. This provides for
barring the jurisdiction of the courts, including that of the Supreme Court.
2
The public discourse and debates do not often go beyond these provisions while
discussing federal governance of water in India. There are several other provisions
through which the Centre works with states on water resources development.
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, are some such acts that draw from various provisions of the
Constitution and impact water resources development indirectly. There are also
other provisions that are gaining significance with the changing development priorities. For instance, the Entry 24 in the Union List about inland waterways is now
rigorously being pursued with the Inland Waterways Authority of India Act of 1985
and the National Waterways Act, 2016 (Chokkakula et al 2020).
However, these are often not taken into account while considering federal water
governance arrangements, if any. Instead, the literature and discourse have settled
to the following understanding:
(a) Water governance is primarily the states’ domain, and water resources development strategies are set and pursued by state governments.
(b) The Centre’s role is essentially restricted to interstate river water and largely
focused on enabling interstate river water dispute resolution.
(c) The Centre’s role extends to exercising influence through financial transfers.
The Centre provides financial assistance to states through various forms of
specific-purpose IGFTs, ostensibly to promote progressive policies and
strategies in water governance. The IGFTs flow in various forms including
Central Sector Schemes (CSs), Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSSs) and
National Projects (NPs).
In conversations about federal water governance, it is widely presumed as well
as assumed that water is a state subject, even though subject to the union’s powers
under the Entry 56. The concentration of executive power with the states fortifies
these notions. These conversations too invariably take place in the background of
interstate river water disputes and their resolution. The episodes of dispute escalation often lead to an impasse or a stalemate, producing awkward situations. These
conditions are most familiar in the long-running and intractable disputes like the
Cauvery and Ravi–Beas. The Centre and other federal institutions—including the
2
Article 262. Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of interstate rivers or river valleys.
(1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to
the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any interstate river or river valley.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the
Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or
complaint as is referred to in clause (1).
170
S. Chokkakula and P. Prajapati