Abstract :
The state governments dominate the allocation of river waters. Since rivers cross state boundaries, disputes are inevitable. The Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956 was legislated to deal with conflicts and included provisions for the establishment of tribunals to adjudicate where direct negotiations have failed. However, states have sometimes refused to accept the decisions of tribunals. A downstream state’s action can affect the upstream state interest only in one case, 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/consequence of losing the prevailing water use. The economic advantage a State seeks to gain by using natural resources brings in political moves which provide little room for the rights of commons. The legal and constitutional provisions have clearly indicated that the Centre has a right to take decisions in the matters of interstate rivers (7th schedule), even if water is a State chapter. The Interstate River Water Disputes Act of 1956 has empowered the State to go for a tribunal in case such conflict arises. All these provisions are incorporated to protect the riparian rights of States and have their own blurred interpretations. The whole set up shows that the project benefits are looked upon as indicators for economic progress and the sacrifices are valued in compensations.
Keyword :
Dispute; Implication; Schedule; River; Water.