Interstate River Water Disputes Act

The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (IRWD Act) is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted under of Constitution of India on the eve of reorganization of states on linguistic basis to resolve the water disputes that would arise in the use, control and distribution of an interstate river or river valley.  Article 262 of the Indian Constitution provides a role for the Central government in adjudicating conflicts surrounding inter-state rivers that arise among the state/regional governments.  This Act further has undergone amendments subsequently and its most recent amendment took place in the year 2002.
River waters use / harnessing is included in states jurisdiction (entry 17 of state list, Schedule 7 of Indian Constitution). However, union government can make laws on regulation and development of inter-State rivers and river valleys when expedient in the public interest (entry 56 of union list, Schedule 7 of Indian Constitution). When public interest is served, President may also establish an interstate council as per to inquire and recommend on the dispute that has arisen between the states of India. IRWD Act (section 2c2) validates the previous agreements (if any) among the basin states to harness water of an interstate river/ river valley. This act is confined to states of India and not applicable to union territories. Only concerned state governments are entitled to participate in the tribunal adjudication and non government entities are not permitted.
Any river water sharing treaty made with other countries, has to be ratified by the Parliament per after deciding the share of the Indian riparian states per to make the treaty constitutionally valid or enforceable by the judiciary as India follows dualist theory for the implementation of international treaties/laws. Indian government has signed Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, Ganga water sharing treaty with Bangladesh, etc. without the ratification by the Parliament and the consent of concerned riparian states per .
Water disputes.
IRWD Act is applicable only to interstate rivers / river valleys. An action of one state should affect the interests of one or more other states. Then only water dispute is deemed to have arisen under IRWD Act (section 3). It can be divided into two independent parts for clarity purpose in understanding the techno-legal application of IRWD Act.
Actions of a downstream state affecting the interest of an upstream state.
A downstream state's action can affect the upstream state interest only in one case. i.e. when a downstream state is building a dam / barrage near its state boundary and submerging the territory of an upstream state on permanent / temporary basis. Other than this action, no other action of a downstream state could affect the upstream states interest which they have been using for economical, ecological and spiritual/ religious aspects. The meaning of the word ‘interest’ in this context is concern / importance / significance / relevance / consequence of losing the prevailing water use or purpose.
Actions of an upstream state affecting the interest of a downstream state.
Whereas all the actions of an upstream state to use or control or distribute the water of an interstate river can affect the downstream states in one way or other. The following are some examples but not complete:
Generally river water is transferred to water deficit areas for use after creating the infrastructure for its storage (water reservoirs) and distribution network (canals, pipelines, ground water charging, etc.). All these acts fall under river water distribution and control category under IRWD Act. All the above actions of an upstream state are legal causes of water dispute to the downstream states since their existing interests are affected as given below:
The use or control or distribution of river water in an upstream state is invariably denial of prevailing use / purpose in the downstream state as it is altering natural flow regime of river water with respect to quantity, quality and time of availability in downstream states. Also dam failures in upstream states can create flash floods or further dam failures in downstream states causing unprecedented property damage and loss of human lives. IRWD Act (section 3) clearly stipulates that mere anticipation of a riparian state actions which can affect other riparian state interests is enough to raise interstate water dispute.
The activities of an upstream state without effecting downstream states interests are peak flood control measures by impounding the flood waters only (not base flows) in 100% or more capacity storage reservoirs for use without effecting water quality appreciably and run off hydro power generation taken up in its territory.
Constitution of Tribunal.
Whenever the riparian states are not able to reach amicable agreements on their own in sharing of an interstate river waters, section 4 of IRWD Act provides dispute resolution process in the form of Tribunal. As per section 5.2 of the Act, the tribunal shall not only adjudicate but also investigate the matters referred to it by the central government and forward a report setting out the facts with its decisions. It implies that the tribunal responsibility is not limited to adjudication of issues raised by the concerned states and also investigation of other aspects which are in public domain such as water pollution, salt export requirement, water quality deterioration, flood control, sustainability of river basin productivity & its ecology, environmental flow requirements, climate change effects, etc. When the tribunal final verdict issued based on the deliberations on the draft verdict is accepted by the central government and notified in the official gazette, the verdict becomes law and binding on the states and union government for implementation. In case the constitutional rights of states are ingressed upon by the tribunal award in any manner, central government, for extending purview of its enactment to implement the tribunal order, is obliged to take the consent of parliament and all riparian states under of the constitution before publishing the tribunal awards in the official gazette. When pronounced in the ambit of IRWD Act and the Indian constitution, the tribunal's verdict after its publication in the official gazette is equivalent to Supreme Court verdict as per section 6 of IRWD Act.
Amendment 2002.
This amendment specifically does not permit altering the prevailing tribunal verdicts issued before the year 2002 (i.e. but not the tribunal awards issued after the year 2002). Thus this amendment bars the tribunals to give any time period/validity for constituting a new tribunal. This is to keep provision to resolve fresh water disputes which were not addressed by earlier tribunals/ agreements as and when they surface.
Amendment bills.
A permanent water dispute tribunal, with its members from sitting/retired judges of Supreme Court or High courts (maximum five including chairman and vice chairman) and technical experts (maximum three), is proposed to resolve the growing number of interstate river water disputes expeditiously. A tribunal bench shall have one technical expert member and one judicial member with chairman or vice chairman out of the members of the permanent water dispute tribunal.
Section 5 (2a) of the amended Act mandated that tribunal report shall also prescribe for the distribution of water among the states during distress situations arising from shortage in river water availability.
Union government is contemplating to bring a new act in place of River Boards Act, 1956 which is presently purely an advisory body of the union government. The new bill called "River basin Management Bill" would constitute River Basin Organisations for each interstate river basin with two tier structure. The lower tier 'Executive Board' of a river basin is represented by various relevant faculties from each riparian state including union government. The top tier called 'Governing Council' of a river basin will have all chief ministers of riparian states as its members to arrive at unanimous decisions. In case of no consensus decision, the dispute would be referred to the tribunal formed under Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
Inter-State River Water Disputes Amendment Bill,2019 : The Inter-State River Water Disputes Amendment Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on 25th July,2019 by the minister of Jal Shakti, Mr.Gajendra Singh Shekhawat. It amends the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.  The Act provides for the adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-state rivers and river valleys.
TRIBUNAL AWARDS
Till now three tribunal awards are notified in official gazette by the Government of India. These are water dispute tribunals allocating river water use by the riparian states for Krishna (tribunal 1), Godavari and Narmada rivers. All these tribunal awards were issued before the year 2002 which cannot be altered by the new tribunals. The tribunals formed on sharing water of Ravi & Beas rivers, Cauvery / Kaveri river, Vamsadhara River, Mahadayi / Mandovi River and Krishna River (tribunal 2 ) are either yet to pronounce the verdicts or the issued verdicts are to be accepted by the Government of India.
Recently, Cauvery water disputes tribunal order was notified by the GoI on 20 February 2013.
The Vamsadhara tribunal pronounced its final verdict in September 2017 and permitted AP state to construct the side weir at Katragedda and Neradi barrage.
In March 2018, Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal is formed on the direction of Supreme Court to adjudicate water sharing dispute between Odisha and Chhattisgarh states.
The Mahadayi Water Tribunal pronounced its final verdict in August 2018 and permitted Karnataka state to use water outside the basin for drinking water use.
Establishment of authorities to implement a tribunal verdict.
Under Section 6A of this Act, central government may frame a scheme or schemes to give effect to the decision of a tribunal. Each scheme has provision to establish an authority for implementation of a tribunal verdict. However, every scheme and all its regulations shall be approved by the parliament. When a tribunal verdict, after formally gazetted by the union government, stipulates to establish the verdict implementation authority/board, the same shall be complied by the union government as the tribunal verdict is equal to Supreme Court verdict. As per of the constitution, it is the duty of the President to enforce the tribunal/supreme court order/verdict without time delay till the Parliament, under Section 6A of this Act, decides against or makes modifications to the already established implementation board/authority.
In the case of Cauvery River basin, SC directed the GoI to set up a temporary Supervisory Committee to implement the tribunal order till the constitution of Cauvery Management Board by GoI. GoI established the said temporary Supervisory Committee on 22 May 2013. In the case of Babli barrage dispute, SC itself constituted the Supervisory Committee to implement the water sharing agreement between Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh in middle Godavari sub basin.
Data bank and information system.
Under Section 9A of this Act, central government shall maintain a data bank and information system at national level for each river basin. State governments shall provide all the data regarding water resources, land, agriculture and matters related thereto as requested by the central government. Central government is also vested with powers to verify the data supplied by the state governments. However, many state governments, e.g., Maharashtra, Chattishgarh, have not been furnishing the land use data in their states (Tables 14 to 16 of Integrated Hydrological Data Book, 2012) and Central Water Commission of MoWR is not pursuing the matter earnestly to get the data which is vital in water resources planning.