The Cauvery water has become a burning issue again. The dispute between the kingdom of Mysore and Madras province has been on the boil since 1892. In the latest verdict, the Supreme Court said, “You can’t go on like this. How long you have been fighting?” The apparent disgust from the apex court regarding the never-ending judicial exercise to resolve the apportionment of the vital resource between states urges a new look at the effectiveness of dispute settlement mechanisms without the carnage, looting and arson, even in our most modern cities.
The Constitution is clear about the river water disputes. Article 262 says, “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 inter-state river or river valley.” The Constitution gives absolute mandate to Parliament over judiciary by saying, “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).”
The Inter-state River Water Disputes Act 1956 is the product of this provision. The tribunal formed under this Act can settle the disputes and the decision of the tribunal shall have the same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court. In the Cauvery context, the tribunal was established in 1990, but unfortunately it took 17 years for declaring an award. Immediately after the tribunal’s verdict, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu approached the apex court through a special leave petition, though Article 262 had excluded judicial intervention. Ramaswamy Iyer, who was an exemplary official in the Ministry of Water Resources, had criticised the Supreme Court for admitting the appeal against the tribunal’s verdict. But the clever counsels of the states could make use of Article 131, which empowers the court with original jurisdiction regarding disputes between Government of India and states or between the states, and hence the prolonged litigations.
In the new century, India cannot depend upon the sole route of adjudication to resolve disputes. The world population has tripled in the last century. The rates of population growth and urbanisation are higher in the developing world, and countries like ours will be facing more disputes than ever. Salman M A, an expert from International Water Resources Association, says from water quantity issues,
water quality and rights will creep into the already complex area of river water dispute. The settlement in the Danube river basin case is a good example, says political strategist Kanishka Singh. The 2,845-km Danube flows through 10 countries in Europe, which were in conflict for decades,
but could resolve issues through democratic means.
Our political and socio-cultural leaders have to learn better resolution methods from success stories across the world. Rivers are our cultural identities and we must transform them from channels of conflict to areas of cooperation.
But before the vow of rioting is consoled, our Prime Minister has thrown the hat in the ring by triggering the rather peacefully settled Indus valley river disputes between India and Pakistan. The Indus treaty was resolved in 1960 with the mediation of the World Bank, which was a signatory too. Modi’s speech challenging Pakistan to compete with India in the war against poverty was remarkable. But inaugurating a new theatre of war of water with Pakistan will only complicate the already complex problems between the neighbours.
C P John
Former member, Kerala State Planning Board
cpjohn.kerala@gmail.com