Interstate Water Disputes (IWD)

Interstate Water Disputes (IWD): Recently, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the Punjab government, calling its decision to de-notify land acquired for the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal an act of "high-handedness.“

• About IWD : Interstate water disputes refer to disagreements between two or more states regarding the use, distribution, or control of waters in a shared river or river valley.

o Constitutional Provisions: Entry 17, State List: Empowers States to legislate on water-related matters like irrigation, canals, and hydroelectricity.

o Entry 56, Union List: Allows the Centre to regulate and develop inter-State rivers in public interest.

o Article 262: Authorizes Parliament to adjudicate inter-State water disputes and bar courts, including the Supreme Court, from intervening.

o One of the key institutions addressing this is the Inter-State Water Disputes Committee, supported by legal provisions under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act,1956

• Purpose of the Committee: The Inter-State Water Disputes Committee is set up by the Ministry of Jal Shakti to mediate and facilitate dialogue between disputing states.

o Advisory Role: The committee may advise or recommend, but does not have judicial authority—formal adjudication is done by tribunals.

o Tribunal Formation: If negotiations fail, the central government refers the matter to a water disputes tribunal, like those for the Cauvery, Krishna, or Ravi-Beas rivers.

• About Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal Dispute:The SYL canal project, intended to divert Sutlej River water to Haryana, has long been a flashpoint between Punjab and Haryana.

o Historical Background: After Haryana's creation in 1966, Punjab resisted water-sharing, invoking the riparian principle, which prioritizes the rights of States through which a river flows. In 1981, both States agreed to reallocate water, and canal construction began in 1982.

o Stalled Progress and Legal Battle: Persistent opposition in Punjab led to protests and halted construction. Haryana approached the Supreme Court to enforce completion. In 2004, Punjab passed the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, ending all prior water-sharing pacts with Haryana.

o Judicial Response: The Supreme Court struck down the Act, deeming it unconstitutional and reaffirming Punjab’s obligation to honor its commitments. In 2020, the Court urged both States to negotiate under Central mediation.

o Current Status:Despite judicial and political interventions, the SYL canal remains incomplete, reflecting deeper challenges in India’s inter-State water governance.