What's New

Drawing lines in Cauvery waters

Resolution of dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu can pave the way for addressing interstate river water conflicts

Relevance

• GS Paper 2 Statutory, regulatory and various quasi-judicial bodies.
• Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.
• Tags: #cauverydispute #banglorebandh #waterdisputes #SC #currentaffairs #upsc.

Why in  the News?

Recently there were bands in Karnataka as protest to SC direction of water release from Cauvery.

The Cauvery water dispute, a centuries-old conflict between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, recently resurfaced, challenging the efficacy of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) established by the Supreme Court in 2018. It is important to understand role of CWMA and framework of policymaking regarding interstate river water disputes.

The Current Dispute

• In August, Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court, seeking Karnataka’s compliance in releasing Cauvery waters at a rate of 24,000 cusecs, citing its due share.
• Karnataka countered, blaming unfavorable rainfall conditions. Last week, the Supreme Court directed Karnataka to release water at the rate of 3,000 cusecs, sparking widespread protests in the state, including a Bengaluru Bandh on September 26 and a statewide bandh on September 29.
• These disputes, which date back centuries, have resulted in civic unrest, violence, and substantial economic losses.

The Role of CWMA

• The CWMA, formed after the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision, is a groundbreaking interstate institutional mechanism designed to resolve disputes among states regarding river water sharing.
• This permanent body was established under Section 6A of the Interstate River Water Disputes Act 1956 (IRWDA). The CWMA, supported by the Cauvery Water Regulatory Committee (CWRC), has been responsible for implementing the Cauvery decision.

The Impact of CWMA

• The existence of CWMA and CWRC has made a significant difference in managing the current dispute.
• This dedicated institutional avenue for objective exchange and deliberation has reduced the scale and intensity of escalation. Unlike previous occasions marked by politically charged posturing, the CWMA’s role as an impartial forum for deliberation appears to have had a positive impact.
• While it may be premature to deem it a complete success, the CWMA highlights the critical importance of interstate institutional mechanisms in managing river water disputes.

Reconsidering Conflict and Cooperation

• The Cauvery dispute underscores that in transboundary water-sharing contexts, conflict and cooperation often coexist. Permanent resolution of interstate river water disputes may remain elusive.
• Therefore, it is essential to supplement legal adjudication with institutional responses that foster cooperation and mitigate conflict.
• Models like the Narmada Control Authority (NCA), developed through consensus, should be examined for lessons in consensus building.

Revisiting the Role of the Supreme Court

• This dispute also questions the unprecedented assertion of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over interstate river water disputes.
• Despite the Court’s 2016 decision to re-adjudicate the Cauvery dispute, disputes persist and escalate, raising doubts about the efficacy of judicial intervention.
• Article 262 of the Indian Constitution bars the jurisdiction of courts over such disputes, and the Interstate River Water Disputes Act 1956 follows suit.
• The Supreme Court’s shift in 2016 contradicted its own historical decisions, where it consistently maintained its lack of jurisdiction over such matters.
• The recent escalation highlights that states may not necessarily comply with the apex court’s decisions, casting doubt on the rationale behind its intervention.

A Moment of Reckoning

• This episode serves as a moment of reckoning, not only for the Supreme Court but also for the proposed amendment to the Interstate River Water Disputes Act currently under parliamentary consideration.
• Policymakers must reconsider the role of courts in settling these disputes, and the wisdom of the constitution framers, who initially barred court jurisdiction, should be revisited.

The Cauvery water dispute and the role of CWMA have provided valuable insights into managing interstate river water conflicts. The coexistence of conflict and cooperation, the importance of institutional mechanisms, and the limitations of judicial intervention must be carefully considered in policymaking to address future disputes effectively.

History of dispute

Sources: Indian Express

Mains Question

“Discuss the recent Cauvery water dispute and its implications for interstate river water conflicts in India. Examine the role of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) in resolving the Cauvery water dispute and its potential lessons for managing similar conflicts.”