Delays in Interstate River Water Dispute Resolution in India

Interstate river water disputes are one of the most persistent challenges in India's governance system. There is a constitutional and statutory framework under Article 262 of the Constitution and the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act (ISRWD Act) of 1956, but resolving these disputes often faces long delays, institutional issues, and political problems. A look at recent and ongoing tribunals highlights the reasons for these delays. 

IMAGE CREDITS-PINTEREST

Unresolved Tribunal Proceedings

In the Vamsadhara Water Dispute Tribunal, which involves Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. The tribunal submitted its report in 2017; however, the dispute is still being adjudicated. The ongoing delays after the report's submission show problems with implementing its decisions, raising questions about how effective tribunals really are. 

The Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal, set up on November 16,2010, is another example. Formed under Section 5(1) of the ISRWD Act, the tribunal has not yet issued its final report or decision under Section 5(2) of the Act. This dispute has significant socioeconomic consequences, especially for Odisha, where about 60% of the population relies on agriculture and is directly affected by water availability. On November 19, 2016, Odisha filed a formal complaint with the Ministry of Jal Shakti regarding Chhattisgarh under Section 3 of the ISRWD Act. After that, the Central Government set up the tribunal. Yet, the matter still remains unresolved, with estimates suggesting the tribunal may not deliver its final report until after 2025. 

Despite a Supreme Court order to create the Cauvery Water Management Authority and the Cauvery Regulation Committee within six weeks, the Central Government delayed their formation. This delay which occurred in 2018, can be attributed to electoral issues in the involved states, showing how political factors affect administrative decisions regarding water governance. 

Role of the Central Government in Delays 

Under Section 5(1) of the ISRWD Act, it must set up tribunals if negotiations fail. The Act also allows the Centre to ensure timely adjudication by setting deadlines and improving the performance of these quasi-judicial bodies. Tribunal awards under the ISRWD Act are legally binding for the parties involved. Therefore, ongoing judicial involvement by the Supreme Court in interstate water disputes often points to a failure of the executive branch rather than a lack of legal authority. Frequent appeals to the judiciary highlight shortcomings in enforcement, monitoring, and political coordination at the central level and state level. 

Other Major Interstate Water Disputes 

The Ravi and Beas Water Tribunal, which involves Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan,. The Central Government already has a clear financial responsibility in the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal issue because of costs related to land that has been acquired but not used. The tribunal has also received yet another extension until August 2026, leading to nearly four decades without a resolution. 

IMAGE CREDITS-GEMINI

The Narmada Water Dispute, which includes Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan, further shows the difficulties in balancing development needs, state interests, and environmental concerns within a federal adjudication framework. Lack of transparency in institutional structures, particularly the absence of clear procedural guidelines for tribunal operations increases delays. Enforcement methods are also weak. While tribunal awards must be followed, there is no strong and clear system in place to ensure compliance, resulting in repeated litigation and administrative standstill.

Structurally, tribunals lack a diverse range of members. They mostly consist of judicial members with not enough input and representation from experts in hydrology,

environmental science, and water management. This limitation is worsened by insufficient data as the lack of reliable and mutually accepted water data makes it hard to set objective benchmarks for adjudication. Political Dimensions of Water Disputes Water disputes in India have become more politicized over time, often being used as tools for electoral campaigns and vote politics. This politicization complicates collaborative federalism, delays the building of consensus and undermines the impartiality of administrative decisions. 

In Conclusion

The ongoing delays in interstate water dispute resolution highlight deeper institutional, procedural and political issues within India’s water governance system. Although statutory mechanisms are in place, their effectiveness is limited by prolonged adjudication, weak enforcement, data shortages, and political factors. Addressing these challenges needs structural reforms, administrative accountability, and continuous political coordination to ensure timely and fair resolutions of disputes that impact livelihoods, agriculture and inter-state relations.

---

ABOUT WRITER

Tejas Singh Charan is a First year student of Political Science at the Hindu College of Delhi University.