Open Access Research Article
Water Tribunal By: Ieshver Vm
Published Paper
Article Details
Water Tribunal
Authored By: Ieshver Vm
Law student currently pursuing III
Year BA.LLB(Hons)
at School Of Excellence In Law of
Tamilnadu
Dr. Ambedkar law university, Chennai.
ABSTRACT:
WATER TRIBUNAL:
An Essential Mechanism for Resolving
Water Resource Dispte .Water is an important and main resource for the function
of human beings and other living forms in the world. As water scarcity and
competition for resources intensify, the need for effective mechanisms to
manage and resolve water-related conflicts becomes increasingly important. This
abstract explores the concept of a Water Tribunal as a dedicated institution
designed to address disputes arising from water allocation, quality, and usage.
The Water Tribunal is envisioned as
an impartial, specialized body responsible for adjudicating water-related
disputes. It would consist of experts in water law, hydrology, environmental
science, and conflict resolution. The tribunal's main objectives include
ensuring equitable distribution of water resources, ensuring environmental
sustainability, and promoting cooperative management of shared waters.
TRIBUNAL:
A tribunal, often established as a
quasi-judicial institution, handles a range of issues, including administrative
and tax-related disputes. Its functions encompass adjudicating disputes,
determining rights among conflicting parties, making administrative decisions,
and reviewing existing ones. The term "tribunal" originates from
"tribunes," denoting magistrates of ancient Rome who safeguarded
citizens from arbitrary judgments by noble judges. A tribunal, whether
explicitly called so or not, represents an entity or individual vested with the
authority to arbitrate, adjudicate, or settle claims and conflict [1]
NEED FOR TRIBUNAL:
?
To
overcome the situation arising due to pendency of cases in various courts,
national tribunals and other tribunals under various laws (hereinafter referred
to as “Tribunals”) have been established.
?
The
Tribunal was created to reduce the court's workload, speed decision-making,
and provide a forum comprised of lawyers
and experts in the fields that fall under the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
?
The
Tribunal plays an important and specialized role in the judicial system. They
relieve pressure on already overloaded ships. Handles disputes related to
environmental, military, tax, and administrative issues. [2]
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:
The introduction of tribunals into
the Indian Constitution was not part of its original framework. It was
subsequently integrated through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, marking a
significant development in India's legal and administrative landscape. This inclusion
is primarily governed by two distinct articles: Article 323-A, which deals with
Administrative Tribunals, and Article 323-B, which pertains to tribunals for
various other matters.
Under Article 323-B, both the
Parliament and state legislatures are granted the authority to establish
tribunals tasked with adjudicating disputes across a spectrum of vital
subjects. These matters encompass taxation, foreign exchange, import and
export, industrial and labor issues, land reforms, urban property ceiling, parliamentary
and state legislature elections, food-related concerns, rent, and tenancy
rights.
A notable distinction between
Articles 323-A and 323-B emerges in three key aspects. Firstly, Article 323-A
primarily focuses on the establishment of tribunals for public service matters,
while Article 323-B extends to tribunals for a broader range of subjects, as
mentioned above. Secondly, while tribunals under Article 323-A can be
instituted exclusively by the Parliament, those under Article 323-B may be established
by both the Parliament and state legislatures, particularly for matters falling
within their legislative purview. Additionally, Article 323-A specifies the
formation of a single tribunal at the center and one for each state or multiple
states, without delving into the question of hierarchy. In contrast, Article
323-B allows for the creation of a hierarchy of tribunals, thereby providing a
more flexible framework.
Moreover, Article 262 of the Indian
Constitution addresses the resolution of inter-state river disputes. This
article outlines the role of the Central Government in mediating and settling
disputes that may arise between state and local governments concerning the
distribution and management of river resources.
In sum, the introduction of tribunals
through the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976 has played a pivotal role in enhancing
the legal infrastructure of India by providing a specialized mechanism for
dispute resolution across a wide range of critical issues, and it has notably
shaped the landscape of administrative justice in the country. [3]
WATER TRIBUNAL:
A water tribunal is a specialized
judicial body created to address disputes and complexities surrounding water
resources. These institutions play a pivotal role in resolving conflicts
related to water allocation, use, and management, involving various
stakeholders like governments, communities, and industries. The primary goal of
water tribunals is to ensure equitable and sustainable access to this essential
natural resource while promoting environmental preservation and societal
well-being.
Key elements crucial to the
functioning of water tribunals include:
1. **Legal Framework**: Establishing
a well-defined legal framework that outlines the tribunal's jurisdiction,
powers, and procedures.
2. **Equitable Distribution**:
Ensuring the fair distribution of water resources among competing users, taking
into account environmental considerations.
3. **Dispute Resolution**: Providing
a platform for parties involved in water disputes to present their cases and
reach mutually acceptable solutions.
4. **Scientific Expertise**:
Leveraging scientific and technical expertise to evaluate environmental and
hydrological aspects of water resource management.
5. **Mediation and Arbitration**:
Using mediation and arbitration techniques to facilitate negotiation and
agreement among conflicting parties.
6. **Transparency and
Accountability**: Ensuring transparency in decision-making processes and
holding the tribunal accountable for its actions.
7. **International Collaboration**:
Promoting international cooperation and treaties to address transboundary water
disputes.
Water tribunals represent a
progressive approach to resolving water-related conflicts impartially, with a
foundation in science and law. Their role in facilitating equitable and
sustainable water management contributes to broader goals of water security and
environmental protection. In a global context where water resources are facing
increasing challenges, dedicated institutions like water tribunals are
instrumental in shaping a more sustainable future.
India, with 18% of the world's
population but only 4% of its renewable water resources, grapples with uneven
water distribution, leading to disputes among states over the allocation of its
seven major rivers. This underscores the pressing need for effective water
governance and dispute resolution mechanisms, such as water tribunals, to
address these concerns. [4]
WATER IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
In the Indian Constitution, water is
addressed in a dual framework. It's included in the State List (item 17),
allowing states to enact laws concerning rivers. Simultaneously, Article 56 of
the Union List grants the Central Government authority to regulate and develop
inter-state rivers and valleys. Article 262 empowers legislatures to decide on
disputes concerning interstate river waters.
Under Article 262, the Indian
Congress passed two key acts:
1. The River Boards Act of 1956,
permitting the Government of India to establish Inter-State River and River
Valley Boards in consultation with state governments. However, no such boards
have been created as of now.
2. The Interstate Water Disputes Act
of 1956, which stipulates that if a state or government approaches the Center
to establish an arbitral tribunal, they must first attempt dispute resolution
through consultation before forming the tribunal. This framework governs
water-related matters in India, balancing state and central interests in water
resource management.
RIVER WATER TRIBUNAL COMPOSITION:
The River Water Tribunal is composed
of the Chief Justice of India, a sitting Supreme Court judge, and two judges
from the Supreme Court or a High Court. In India, water dispute resolution
follows the 1956 Inter-State Water Disputes Act, allowing state governments to
seek a tribunal for resolution. The tribunal's decision is ultimate and
binding.
INTER STATE WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL:
In India, the Inter-State Water
Disputes Act of 1956 empowers state governments to seek a central tribunal for
the resolution of water disputes. Notably, the decision of this tribunal holds
ultimate authority.
RIVER WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL'S HISTORY:
The first interstate water tribunal,
the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, was established in 1969 with the
participation of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra. In 1973, R.S.
Bachawat delivered the judgment. However, a review was demanded by the involved
states decades later, leading to the formation of the second Krishna Water
Disputes Tribunal in 2004. The judgment was delivered in 2010, and it was
reviewed at the request of Andhra Pradesh. Following the creation of Telangana,
it became the fourth party to the conflict, and the case remains pending in the
Supreme Court.
Delays in settling and enforcing
decisions prompted amendments to the Interstate Water Disputes Act in 2002.
These changes included ensuring that the tribunal is constituted within a year
of the request, with a mandate to reach decisions within three years (or
exceptionally, within five years). In cases where the decision is not
immediately implemented, interested parties can seek clarification within three
months. The tribunal's decision holds the same weight as a Supreme Court
decision and is final, beyond the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. However, state
governments retain the option to approach the Supreme Court through Article 136
(Special Leave Petition), or individuals can apply to the Supreme Court for a
violation of Article 21 (Right to Life).
The Inter-State Water Disputes
(Amendment) Bill of 2017 proposed the establishment of a single permanent
tribunal to handle such disputes. The bill aimed to maintain a transparent
national-level data collection system categorized by basin and create a data
bank and information system under a single agency. Additionally, it planned to
form a dispute mediation committee consisting of experts, tasked with resolving
disputes within a year. Only if the commission failed to resolve the dispute
would the matter be escalated to the tribunal. These measures were intended to
expedite the resolution of interstate water disputes in India.
ACTIVE WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNALS IN INDIA:
?
Krishna
Water Disputes Tribunal II (2004) – Karnataka, Telangana, Andra Pradesh,
Maharashtra
?
Mahanadi
Water Disputes Tribunal (2018) – Odisha & Chattisgarh
?
Mahadayi
Water Disputes Tribunal (2010) – Goa,Karnataka, Maharashtra
?
Ravi
& Beas Water Tribunal (1986) – Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan
?
Vansadhara
Water Disputes Tribunal (2010) – Andra Pradesh & Odisha.[5]
ISSUES WITH INTERSTATE WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNALS:
Water disputes in India are notorious
for their protracted resolution times, causing substantial delays. For
instance, the Godavari water dispute application was filed in 1962, but it took
until 1980 for the tribunal's decision to be published in the Official Gazette.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, established in 1990, didn't reach a final
decision until 2007. This snail-paced process is compounded by a lack of
transparency in the institutional framework and procedural guidelines,
resulting in challenges in execution.
Moreover, the composition of these
tribunals lacks multidisciplinary representation, primarily comprising judicial
representatives. This narrow focus inhibits a comprehensive understanding of
the intricate technical and ecological aspects of water disputes.
Another critical issue is the absence
of authoritative, universally accepted water resource data, which is essential
for establishing a baseline for adjudication. Without this common foundation,
disputes become more complex.
The shift in the tribunal's approach
from deliberative to adversarial has further fueled litigation over water
division and politicized disputes. As water becomes intertwined with politics,
debates often devolve into issues of vote-bank politics. This politicization
has led to increased resistance by states, higher litigation rates, and
weakened dispute resolution mechanisms. For instance, the Punjab government
excluded the case in the Ravi Beas court.
Additionally, the water dispute
resolution process contains various ambiguities and complexities, partly due to
the involvement of multiple government and departmental stakeholders. India's
intricate federal structure and colonial legacy also contribute to the
challenges, leaving ample room for discretion at various stages.
In conclusion, India's water dispute
resolution process is mired in a web of delays, opacity, and inefficiencies. To
expedite the resolution of these crucial disputes, it is imperative to address
these issues by promoting transparency, multidisciplinary expertise, and the
availability of comprehensive data while mitigating the influence of politics
on water matters. [6]
CAUVERY WATER DISPUTE:
The Cauvery River, an intrinsic part
of Karnataka, flows through Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, ultimately reaching the
Bay of Bengal. The livelihoods and food production in both states significantly
rely on the waters of the Cauvery. However, this shared resource has been a
source of contentious disputes for years. Tamil Nadu contends that it requires
the river's mercy, especially during dry years, while Karnataka struggles to
provide water to its own farmers.
Historically, an agreement was in
place between the Madras Presidency and the Principality of Mysore until it
lapsed in 1974. Multiple efforts were made to resolve the dispute through
trilateral meetings between the ministers of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, along
with Union Ministers for Irrigation, from 1968 to 1990. These discussions
failed to yield a mutually agreeable solution. Even the Indian government's
mediation between 1972 and 1976 couldn't bring about an accord.
Tamil Nadu's plea led to the
establishment of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal by the central government
in June 1990. In 1991, the tribunal issued an interim order instructing
Karnataka to release one tmcft (thousand million cubic feet) of water to Tamil
Nadu. Dissatisfied with this temporary measure, Karnataka escalated the matter
to the Supreme Court.
In a landmark case known as Re
Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal v. Respondent, the Supreme Court declared
Karnataka's order to be ultra vires, or beyond its legal authority. This
decision sparked protests in Karnataka, leading to unfortunate fatalities. In
response, the central government formed a monitoring committee under the
Cauvery River Authority (CRA) and the Interstate River Water Disputes (ISRWD)
Act in 1998. This agency directed Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of water to
Tamil Nadu. However, Karnataka refused to comply, exacerbating the dispute.
In 2007, the Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal issued its final award, validating the two agreements between Madras
and Mysore on water supply to Tamil Nadu from 1892 to 1924. Tamil Nadu had two
primary demands. First, it sought the publication of the final award in the
Official Gazette, and second, it pushed for the establishment of a Cauvery
Management Board. The latter demand was eventually fulfilled in 2013.
The situation reached its zenith in
September 2016 when the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka government to
release 15,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu within ten days. Karnataka adhered
to court orders, but the decision led to violent protests in the state,
resulting in one fatality and injuries. Tamil-owned businesses were targeted by
angry mobs, causing turmoil and a blockade of the Bengaluru-Mysore highway.
Simultaneously, in response to the
Attorney General's request, the Supreme Court commissioned a technical team to
assess the ground reality in the Cauvery Basin. The team reported its findings
in October 2016 and directed the Karnataka government to release 2,000 cusecs
of water. Hearings on the matter are ongoing.
The Cauvery conflict has strained
relations between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The violence and disorder
accompanying the dispute have exacerbated the situation. The central government
has played a mediating role, establishing an arbitration panel and forming the
technical team based on its recommendations. Furthermore, the Cauvery River
Authority (CRA) monitored the actions of the Prime Minister. Thus, the central
government has played the role of a negotiator in this contentious interstate
water dispute. [7]
SUGGESTIONS:
Digital Case Management: Implement a
digital case management system to streamline the documentation and retrieval of
case-related information. This can significantly reduce paperwork and
administrative delays.
Specialized Training: Provide specialized
training for tribunal staff and judges to enhance their understanding of
water-related issues, allowing for more informed and efficient decisions.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):
Encourage the use of ADR methods, such as mediation or arbitration, to resolve
cases more quickly and cost-effectively, while reducing the burden on the
tribunal's docket.
Clear and Predictable Procedures:
Ensure that the rules and procedures for filing cases, presenting evidence, and
making appeals are clear and well-defined. Predictable processes reduce
uncertainty and delays.
Qualified and Sufficient Personnel:
Ensure that the tribunal has a sufficient number of qualified judges and
support staff to handle its caseload effectively.
Case Prioritization: Establish a
system for prioritizing cases, giving preference to urgent matters or those
with significant environmental or public health implications.
Stakeholder Engagement: Involve
relevant stakeholders, such as local communities, environmental organizations,
and government agencies, in the decision-making process to ensure a more
comprehensive view of the issues.
Expert Consultation: When necessary,
engage independent experts to provide technical input and advice to the
tribunal, especially in complex or highly technical cases.
Efficient Hearing Procedures:
Streamline the hearing process, avoiding unnecessary delays and ensuring that
hearings are conducted in an organized and timely manner.
Public Awareness and Education:
Promote public awareness and education about the tribunal's role, processes,
and available resources to encourage responsible and informed use of the
tribunal's services.
Performance Metrics: Establish and
regularly review key performance indicators to monitor and improve the
tribunal's efficiency, such as case resolution times and user satisfaction.
Regular Review and Adaptation:
Continuously evaluate and adapt tribunal procedures and rules to address
changing circumstances and emerging water-related issues.
Implementing these suggestions can
help enhance the efficiency of a Water Tribunal, ensuring that it fulfills its
role in resolving water-related disputes effectively and fairly.
CONCLUSION:
The proposal to establish a single,
permanent tribunal for interstate river water disputes is a positive move in
streamlining the resolution process. However, it alone cannot address the
multifaceted issues - legal, administrative, constitutional, and political -
that affect the overall framework. The idea of creating an agency to collect
and process river water data is a step in the right direction. To uphold
cooperative federalism, it's crucial to prevent a parochial mindset that
prioritizes regional over national issues. Resolving disputes through dialogue
and avoiding political opportunism is essential. What's needed is a robust and
transparent institutional framework with a cooperative approach to effectively
manage and resolve these complex water-related issues.
REFERENCES:
Article Information
Water Tribunal By: Ieshver Vm
Authors: Ieshver Vm
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/10/17
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.