Article 262 — Disputes Relating to Inter-State Rivers

Article 262 sits in Part XI of the Constitution of India, within the chapter governing relations between the Union and the States, and addresses one of the most contentious arenas of Indian federalism: the sharing of river waters across State boundaries. The provision contains two clauses. Article 262(1) authorises Parliament to provide by law 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. Article 262(2) permits Parliament, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, to provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction over such a dispute. The article must be read alongside Entry 56 of the Union List, which gives the Union power over regulation of inter-State rivers to the extent declared by Parliament to be expedient in the public interest, and Entry 17 of the State List, which places water — including water supply, irrigation, and embankments — within State competence subject to Entry 56. This division reflects the drafters' recognition that rivers traverse political borders while remaining a State subject in ordinary administration.

Parliament exercised its Article 262 mandate through two statutes enacted in 1956. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (ISRWD Act) establishes the procedural machinery, while the River Boards Act, 1956 provides for advisory boards to regulate and develop inter-State rivers. Under the ISRWD Act as amended, when a State Government requests adjudication and the Central Government is satisfied that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, the Centre constitutes a tribunal. Section 4 governs the constitution of the tribunal, whose members are serving or retired judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts nominated by the Chief Justice of India. The tribunal investigates the matters referred, may seek assessor assistance, and renders an award. Section 6 provides that the decision of the tribunal, once published in the Official Gazette by the Central Government, has the same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court, making it binding on the party States.

The statutory scheme has been refined over time. The Inter-State Water Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2002 imposed timelines: a tribunal must be constituted within one year of a State's request, and must ordinarily render its award within three years, extendable by two years. The 2002 amendment also inserted Section 6A, allowing the Central Government to frame schemes to implement awards, and clarified the binding nature of decisions. A subsequent reform proposal — the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019 — sought to create a single, permanent multi-disciplinary tribunal with multiple benches and a Disputes Resolution Committee to attempt negotiated settlement before adjudication, addressing the proliferation of ad hoc tribunals and chronic delay. The bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha but had not been enacted as a unified standing tribunal at the time of writing.

Several long-running disputes illustrate the machinery in practice. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal, and the Ravi-Beas dispute all proceeded under the ISRWD Act. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, constituted in 1990 to resolve claims among Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, and Puducherry, delivered its final award in 2007; in 2018 the Supreme Court of India modified the apportionment and directed the Centre to frame a scheme, leading to the constitution of the Cauvery Water Management Authority. The Mahadayi (Mandovi) Water Disputes Tribunal, involving Goa, Karnataka, and Maharashtra, and the long-disputed Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal between Punjab and Haryana remain politically charged in New Delhi and the respective State capitals.

Article 262 must be distinguished from Article 131, which confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court over disputes between the Union and States or among States. Although a water dispute appears to fit Article 131, the ouster clause in Article 262(2), operationalised by Section 11 of the ISRWD Act, expressly bars the Supreme Court and all other courts from adjudicating matters referable to a tribunal. The two provisions thus operate as a deliberate carve-out: Article 262 is the specialised channel that displaces the general original jurisdiction of Article 131 for inter-State river disputes. It also differs from the inter-State Council under Article 263, which is a coordinating and advisory body, not an adjudicatory one.

The ouster clause has generated enduring controversy. While Section 11 bars courts from adjudicating the dispute itself, the Supreme Court has retained the power to entertain Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 against a tribunal's award, treating the tribunal as a body amenable to judicial scrutiny — a position affirmed in the Cauvery litigation and earlier in matters concerning the binding nature of awards. This judicial gloss has blurred the intended finality of tribunal decisions, fuelling debate over whether Article 262's bar is absolute. Delay is the other persistent grievance: tribunals have taken decades to report, and States have resisted compliance, prompting the 2019 reform effort and demands for a permanent tribunal with binding enforcement.

For the working practitioner, Article 262 is the constitutional anchor of India's water federalism and a recurring theme in UPSC General Studies Paper II on the functioning of the Union-State relationship. Desk officers and policy researchers must grasp the interplay of Entry 56, the ISRWD Act, the ouster of jurisdiction, and the residual reach of Article 136. Understanding why negotiated settlement, tribunal adjudication, and Supreme Court oversight coexist uneasily is essential to analysing flashpoints such as Cauvery and the Sutlej-Yamuna Link, where law, hydrology, and electoral politics converge.