Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (October 1969):
Under Section-4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, the Central Government constituted Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) on 6th Oct. 1969 to adjudicate upon the sharing of Narmada waters and Narmada River Valley Development under the Chairmanship of Justice V. Ramaswami.
Award Of The Tribunal
The Tribunal gave its Award on 7th Dec., 1979. The NWDT Award was notified by Government of India on 12th December, 1979, whereupon it became final and binding on the parties to the dispute. The Award specified quantum of utilisable waters at 75% dependability to be shared by the four States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan as under:-
| State | Flow |
| Gujarat | 9.00 MAF |
| Madhya Pradesh | 18.25 MAF |
| Maharashtra | 0.25 MAF |
| Rajasthan | 0.50 MAF |
| Total | 28.00 MAF |
| (MAF-Million Acre Feet) | |
The Tribunal determined that the height of the Sardar Sarovar Dam should be fixed for Full Reservoir Level (FRL) of 138.68 m (455 ft.). and also directed Government of Gujarat (GOG) to take up and complete the construction of the dam accordingly. According to Clause-16 of the final orders of the Tribunal, the parameters of shares of utilisable waters by the States, FRL of the reservoir and Full Supply Level (FSL) of Navagam Canal are made subject to review at any time after a period of 45 years from the date of publication of the Award of the Tribunal in the official gazette.
Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (In April 1969):
The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal headed by Justice Bachawat was constituted by the Government in April, 1969 for adjudication of Inter-State Water Disputes regarding Godavari river. While the adjudication proceedings were going on, several Inter-State agreements between the party States viz. Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka were reached during the year 1975. Subsequently, bilateral and tripartite agreements between the party States with regard to number of irrigation projects were also reached during the year 1978-79. The Tribunal took cognizance of all these agreements and having regard to the requests of the party States included them in the Final Award. The agreements in effect imply a series of Inter-State compacts in the sense that the party States are free to utilise flow of river Godavari or its tributaries upto certain specified points. For example, Maharashtra is free to utilise flow in Godavari upto Paithan, while the State of Andhra Pradesh is free to utilise the Godavari flows below Paithan. Similarly, the bilateral agreements also specify for sharing of water of certain tributaries of Godavari. The agreement also provides for construction of certain Inter-State projects such as Inchampally and Polavaram with specified Full Reservoir Levels (FRL). The Tribunal gave its Award in July, 1980. Constitution Award * The agreement on Polavaram Project provides for diversion of 80 TMC of Godavari Water from Polavaram Project to Krishna River upstream of Vijayawada Anicut. The water thus diverted in Krishna will be shared as under - Andhra Pradesh 45 TMC - Karnataka & Maharashtra 35 TMC * The Inchampalli Multipurpose Project will be a joint venture of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh to be executed and operated under the directions of a Tripartite Inter-State Control Board. The cost of storage, power and benefits will be shared by these States in agreed proportions. Andhra Pradesh is allowed to divert 85 TMC of waters from Inchampalli Reservoir for its use. The balance available water is to be used for power generation at Inchampalli Power House. After generation, the water can be used by Andhra Pradesh in any manner. * As per the award any alteration, amendments or modification to any of the provision of the Tribunal can be made by agreement between the party States or by legislation of Parliament. OTHER INTER STATE WATER DISPUTES: Babhali Barrage issue: 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh in May, 2005 brought to the notice of the Central Government that Govt. of Maharashtra is constructing Babhli barrage in the reservoir submergence area of Sriram Sagar Project which is in violation of the GWDT award. In this regard, Member, Central Water Commission (CWC) held two meetings with officers of the States of Andhra Pradesh and (i) A Technical Committee headed Chairman or by a senior officer of Central Water Commission and consisting of representatives of the States shall go into the details of various issues involved in Babhli Barrage project. The Technical Committee shall submit a report as early as possible but not later than (ii) Till the Technical Committee submits its report, the status quo in respect of activities of the Babhli barrage project shall be maintained and further construction work will not be done by the State of 2 Two meetings of the Technical Committee were held. The Technical Committee however, could not submit the report due to non-submission of detailed proposals by Govt. of Andhra Pradesh in respect of suggestions made during the meetings. 3. In July 2006, Government of Andhra Pradesh filed an Original Suit under Article 131 of Constitution against State of 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court heard the matter on (i) Though the State of (ii) As the state of Thus, the matter is subjudiced. Mulla Periyar Dam issue: 1. On 2. The Mullaperiyar Dam was constructed during 1887-1895 across Periyar river in the then Travancore state (now Kerala) territory after said indenture. The Periyar Dam with full reservoir level of 152 ft. provides for diversion of water from the reservoir through a tunnel to Vaigai basin in Tamil Nadu for irrigation benefits in 68558 ha. 3 In 1979, reports appeared in Kerala Press about damage to Periyar Dam. On 4. A second meeting under the Chairmanship of Chairman, CWC was held on 5. As per the Memorandum on the Rehabilitation of Mulla Periyar Dam prepared by CWC and forwarded to Tamil Nadu on 25th March, 1986, emergency measures such as the provision of RCC capping with along with a RCC parapet , keeping the gates in lifted position and medium term measure like strengthening of dam by cables were implemented. In the aforesaid Memo, CWC gave its recommendation about peak flood and size of additional vents to be added in the spill way for implementing remaining emergency measure of providing additional spilling capacity. It also gave its recommendation about the design details of concrete backing on the downstream face of the dam. Besides this, CWC suggested Government of Tamil Nadu to examine the possibility of raising the top of RCC parapet by another two feet apart from a few other suggestions. It was opined in the forwarding note that after completion of the proposed strengthening measures, provision of other additional vents and implementation of other suggestions, Periyar dam would be competent to hold water upto FRL of 152 ft. 6. The remaining emergency measures i.e. providing additional spilling capacity by adding three additional vents, long term measures i.e. 10 m. concrete backing on the downstream face of the dam and additional strengthening measures suggested by CWC in 1986 i.e. rising of parapet wall of Baby dam and main dam upto 160 ft., were completed by Tamil Nadu after 1986. The suggestion of construction of new dam downstream was not pursued since it was decided to strengthen the existing dam. 7. The matter became subjudice with several petitions in the Kerala and Tamil Nadu High Courts. All these cases were transferred to the Supreme Court who heard the matter on 28.4.2000 and asked Minister (WR) to convene a meeting of the Chief Ministers. 8. Minister (WR) convened the Inter-State meeting on 19.5.2000 and as decided in the meeting, an Expert Committee under Member (D&R), CWC with representatives from both States was constituted to advise on the issue of safety of the dam as a result of execution of strengthening measures carried out by Government of Tamil Nadu on the advice of Central Water Commission and regarding raising of water level in the reservoir beyond 136 ft. 9. The Committee in its report of March, 2001 opined that with the strengthening measures implemented, the water level can be raised from 136 ft. to 142 ft. without endangering safety of the dam. Further rising of water level to 152 ft. will be considered after balance strengthening measures are implemented. 10. The Report of the Expert Committee was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 31.8.2001 and also sent to the State Governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. 11. The Supreme Court delivered its orders on 27.2.2006, permitting the Government of Tamil Nadu to raise the water level of Mulla Periyar dam from 136 ft. to 142 ft. and to carry out the remaining strengthening measures. 12. Consequent to the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court of India, the Kerala Government passed the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act 2006 on 13. Government of Tamil Nadu filed a suit No. 3 of 2006 - State of Tamil Nadu v/s State of Kerala and Union of India in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 31.3.2006 praying for - (i) Declaration of Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act 2006 passed by Kerala Legislature as unconstitutional in its application to and effect on Mulla Periyar Dam. (ii) Pass a decree of permanent injection restraining Kerala from application and enforcing impugned legislation enforcing with or obstructing Tamil Nadu from increasing the water level to 142 feet and from carrying out the repair works as per judgment of Supreme Court dated 14. A Review Petition filed by the State of 15. In the matter referred to in para 13 above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order on 25.9.2006 stating “the two State Governments independently or with the intervention of the Union of India may try to sort out, if possible, the dispute”. 16. The Hon’ble Union Minister (WR) convened an inter-State meeting of the Chief Ministers of States of Tamil Nadu & Kerala on Mullaperiyar dam issue on 29.11.2006 at 17. Subsequently, Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu met Hon’ble Prime Minister on 18.12.2007 and Hon’ble Prime Minister suggested him to have a meeting with Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala on Mulla Periyar issue. Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu met Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala on 19.12.2007 in presence of Hon’ble Union Minister of Water Resources. Further a letter dated 20.12.2007 has been received from Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu mentioning that in the above meeting, Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu suggested to oversee the seepage measurement of the dam by engineers not belonging to either of the two States through CWC and Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala agreed to consider them. 18. Later, the Govt. of Tamil Nadu forwarded a letter dt 22/1/08 of Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala addressed to Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu wherein it is mentioned that in the meeting dt 19/12/2007 he suggested a joint mechanism to monitor the seepage. The Govt. of Tamil Nadu has also enclosed a letter dated 19. CWC was requested to suggest a suitable mechanism for monitoring the seepage and possible structure of the Committee to monitor it. They suggested a nine- member Committee headed by a Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission having representatives from both States for Monitoring the seepage of Mulla Periyar Dam. The composition of the Committee along with terms of reference was sent to Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and Kerala vide letter dated 28.4.2008 for their concurrence / suggestions. 20. Comments/concurrence of the Govt. of Kerala is awaited. However, Government of Tamil Nadu vide its letter dated 17.6.2008 has sent its comments on the proposed Monitoring Committee. The Government of Tamil Nadu has mentioned that the present proposal of the Government of India to constitute a Committee comprising officers from CWC, Tamil Nadu Government and Kerala Government to measure the seepage in Mulla Periyar Dam is not in conformity with the discussion held in the meeting dated 19.12.2007 and proposal will lead to more and more complications and thus not acceptable to Govt. of Tamil Nadu. Views of the Govt. of Kerala on the same have also been sought vide letter dated 24.06.2008 which are awaited. 21. New items appeared in the news papers in July, 2008 that the Govt. of Kerala has got the studies done from retired professors of IIT,
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:
The Sarkaria Commission:
It is generally observed that the Tribunals set up for resolving inter-State issues take considerable time to give decision/awards. The matter received attention of Sarkaria Commission. The Sarkaria Commission in its report at Chapter XVII on Inter-State River Water Disputes has recommended that:- · Once an application under Section 3 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act (33 of 1956 ) is received from a State, it should be mandatory on the Union Government to constitute a Tribunal within a period not exceeding one year from the date of receipt of the application of any disputant State. The Inter- State River Water Disputes Act may be suitably amended for this purpose. These five recommendations were considered by the erstwhile Sub-Committee of the Inter-State Council. The Sub-Committee accepted four out of five recommendations. The remaining one recommendation against para 17.6.01 of Sarkaria Commission's Report was accepted with a minor modification. The time frame specified for constituting a Tribunal by the Union Govt. was increased from one year to two years. The Inter-State Council in its meeting held on 15.10.96 generally endorsed the recommendations. However, in view of the reservations expressed by some of the Chief Ministers, it was decided that they would convey their reservations to the Inter-State Council Secretariat so that their views could be further considered by the Standing committee of the Inter-State council. Taking into account the views of the State Governments and that of the Ministry of Water Resources, the Inter-State Council Secretariat prepared a consensus paper on the recommendations of Sarkaria Commission, which was deliberated upon during fifth meeting of the Standing Committee of Inter-State council held on 10.11.97 under the chairmanship of the Union Minister of Home Affairs. The recommendations of the Standing Committee on these five recommendations (at para 17.6.01 to 17.6.05 ) are as under : Rec.No. Para no. Sarkaria Recommendation of the Standing Commission Report Committee of the Inter State Council 212 17.6.01 Agreed in toto the contents of the recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission 213 17.6.02 This recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission has not been agreed to. 214 17.6.03 Agreed in toto the contents of the recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission. 215 17.6.04 The recommendation of the Standing Committee on this item is as below : "The Tribunal should give its award within a period of three years from the date of its constitution. However, if for unavoidable reasons the award could not be given within a period of three years, the Union Government may extend the period suitably not exceeding two years. The award should be implemented within two years from the date of notification of the award. If for unavoidable reasons the award could not be implemented within a period of two years the Union Government may extend the period suitably." 216 17.6.05 Agreed in toto the the contents of the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission. Based on the recommendations given by the Inter-State Council on Sarkaria Commission’s Recommendation a bill for amending the Inter State Water Disputes Act 1956 was introduced in Lok Sabha on 7.3.2001. The Bill was passed in Lok Sabha on 3.8.2001 and Rajya Sabha on 11.3.2002 and received the assent of the President on 28.3.2002. Inter - State River Water Disputes Act 1956: Definitions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires Ø The use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley or Ø The interpretation of the terms of any agreement relating to the use, distribution or control of such waters or the implementation of such agreement or Ø The levy of any water rate in contravention of the prohibition contained in section 7. Complaints by State Governments as to water disputes If it appears to the Government of any State that a water dispute with the Government of another State has arisen or is likely to arise by reason of the fact that the interests of the State, or of any of the inhabitants thereof, in the waters of an inter-State river or river valley have been, or are likely to be, affected prejudicially by- (a) any executive action or legislation taken or passed, or proposed to be taken or passed, by the other State; or (b) the failure of the other State or any authority therein to exercise any of their powers with respect to the use, distribution or control of such waters; or (c) the failure of the other State to implement the terms of any agreement relating to the use, distribution or control of such waters; the State Government may, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, request the Central Government to refer the water dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication. 1. When any request under section 3 is received from any State Government in respect of any water dispute and the Central Government is of opinion that the water dispute cannot be settled by negotiations, the Central Government shall, within a period not exceeding one year from the date of receipt of such request, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal for the adjudication of the water dispute: Provided that any dispute settled by a Tribunal before the commencement of Inter-State Water Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2002 shall not be re-opened" 2. The Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and two other members nominated in this behalf by the Chief Justice of India from among persons who at the time of such nomination are Judges of the Supreme Court or of a High Court. 3. The Central Government may, in consultation with the Tribunal, appoint two or more persons as assessors to advise the Tribunal in the proceedings before it". When a Tribunal has been constituted under section 4, the Central Government shall, subject to the prohibition contained in section 8, refer the water dispute and any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the water dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal shall investigate the matters referred to it and forward to the Central Government a report setting out the facts as found by it and giving its decision on the matters referred to it within a period of three years. Provided that if the decision cannot be given for unavoidable reason, within a period of three years, the Central Government may extend the period for a further period not exceeding two years. If, upon consideration of the decision of the Tribunal, the Central Government or any State Government is of opinion that anything therein contained requires explanation or that guidance is needed upon any point not originally referred to the Tribunal, the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, within three months from the date of the decision, again refer the matter to the Tribunal for further consideration, and on such reference, the Tribunal may forward to the Central Government a further report within one year from the date of such reference giving such explanation or guidance as it deems fit and in such a case, the decision of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be modified accordingly: Provided that the period of one year within which the Tribunal may forward its report to the Central Government may be extended by the Central Government, for such further period as it considers necessary”. If the members of the Tribunal differ in opinion on any point, the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority If, for any reason a vacancy (other than a temporary absence) occurs in the office of the Chairman or any other member of a Tribunal, such vacancy shall be filled by a person to be nominated in this behalf by the Chief Justice of India in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 4, and the investigation of the matter referred to the Tribunal may be continued by the Tribunal after the vacancy is filled and from the stage at which the vacancy occurred. The Central Government shall publish the decision of the Tribunal in the Official Gazette and the decision shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute and shall be given effect to by them. The decision of the Tribunal, after its publication in the Official Gazette by the Central Government under sub-section (1) , shall have the same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court. 1. Without prejudice to the provisions of section 6, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame a scheme or schemes whereby provision may be made for all matters necessary to give effect to the decision of a Tribunal. 2. A scheme framed under sub-section (1) may provide for- 3. In making provision in any scheme framed under sub-section (1) Prohibition of levy of seigniorage, etc. 1) No State Government shall, by reason only of the fact that any works for the conservation, regulation or utilisation of water resources of an inter-State river have been constructed within the limits of the State, impose, or authorise the imposition of, any seigniorage or additional rate or fee (by whatever name called) in respect of the use of such water by any other State or the inhabitants thereof. 2) Any dispute or difference between two or more State Governments with respect to the levy of any water rate in contravention of the prohibition contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a water dispute. Bar of reference of certain disputes to tribunal Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 or section 5, no reference shall be made to a Tribunal of any dispute that may arise regarding any matter which may be referred to arbitration under the River Boards Act, 12[1956]. 1. The Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely :- summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of documents and material objects (ba.) requisitioning of any data, as may be required by it. issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or for local investigation; any other matter which may be prescribed. 2. The Tribunal may require any State Government to carry out, or permit to be carried out, such surveys and investigation as may be considered necessary for the adjudication of any water dispute pending before it. 3. A decision of the Tribunal may contain directions as to the Government by which the expenses of the Tribunal and any costs incurred by any State Government in appearing before the Tribunal are to be paid, and may fix the amount of any expenses or costs to be so paid, and so far as it relates to expenses or costs, may be enforced as if it were an order made by the Supreme Court. 4.[Subject to the provisions of this Act and any rules that may be made hereunder] the Tribunal may, by order, regulate its practice and procedure. 1) The Central Government shall maintain a data bank and information system at the national level for each river basin which shall include data regarding water resources, land, agriculture, and matters relating thereto, as the Central Government may prescribe from time to time. The State Government shall supply the data to the Central Government or to an agency appointed by the Central Government for the purpose, as and when required. 2) The Central Government shall have powers to verify the data supplied by the State Government, and appoint any person or persons for the purpose and take such measures as it may consider necessary. The person or persons so appointed shall have the powers to summon such records and information from the concerned State Government as are considered necessary to discharge their functions under this section. Allowances or Fees for Chairman and other Members of Tribunal and Assessors The Chairman and other members of a Tribunal] and the assessors shall be entitled to receive such remuneration, allowances or fees as may be prescribed. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have or exercise jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to a Tribunal under this Act. Dissolution of Tribunal The Central Government shall dissolve the Tribunal after it has forwarded its report and as soon as the Central Government is satisfied that no further reference to the Tribunal in the matter would be necessary. 1) The Central Government, after consultation with the State Governments, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. 2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely;- 3) Every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days, 20 [which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid] both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule. CURRENT INTER STATE WATER DISPUTES AND TRIBUNALS: Vansadhara River Water Dispute: 1 The State of Orissa in February 2006 sent a complaint to the Central Government under Section 3 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes (ISRWD) Act, 1956 regarding water disputes between the Government of Orissa and Government of Andhra Pradesh pertaining to Inter-State River Vansadhara for constitution of a Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunal for adjudication. The main grievance of the State of Orissa in the complaint sent to the Central Government is basically adverse effect of the executive action of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh in undertaking the construction of a canal taking off from the river Vamasadhara called as flood flow canal at Katragada and failure of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh to implement the terms of inter-State agreement understanding etc. relating to use, distribution and control of waters of inter-State river Vansadhara and its valley. Basic contention of State of 2 As per the provision of ISRWD Act, 1956, when any request under Section 3 is received from any State Government in respect of any water dispute and the Central Government is of opinion that the water dispute cannot be settled by negotiations, the Central government shall, within a period of not exceeding one year from the date of receipt of such request, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal for the adjudication of the water dispute. Accordingly, Secretary (WR) convened an inter-State meeting on 24.4.2006 at In continuation of this process, another inter-State meeting at the level of Addl. Secretary (WR) was convened on 5th Meanwhile, the W.P.(C)No.443 of 2006 filed by State of Further, an inter state meeting was taken by Chairman, CWC with the officers of CWC, CWPRs, Pune, the State of A.P. and Orissa on 17.12.07 to discuss the model studies requested in this regard. Another meeting was held on 22.1.08 to firm up additional/studies required. Further necessary action in the matter is being taken by CWC. Mahadayi/ Mandovi River: In July, 2002, the State of Therefore, actions and efforts of Central Government in MoWR since July, 2002 were basically guided by the aforesaid provision of the Act. In continuation of this process, Hon’ble Union Minister for Water Resources convened an inter-State meeting on 4.4.2006 at the level of Chief Ministers of the States of Goa, Karnataka and As per the provisions of Act Government of Goa was requested to send a revised request since its request of July 2002 does not confirm to provision of Act. Government of Meanwhile the Govt. of Goa filed a suit in the Hon’ble Supreme court in Sept, 06 for setting up of a water dispute tribunal for adjudication of the above river water dispute and an interlocutory Application (IA) for stay in construction activities. The suit with the application has been listed on a number of occasions before the Krishna River Water Dispute Tribunal: 1. The 2. The KWDT passed orders on June 9, 2006 on the Interim Relief Application filed by the party States of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh declining to give interim relief as sought in the application and at the same time indicating certain norm with a view to facilitate adjudication of the dispute before the Tribunal. Subsequently, State of Cauvery Water Disputes: Progress in Adjudication of the Dispute before the CWDT The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) was constituted by the Government of India on Monitoring of the implementation of Interim order of CWDT Under the provisions of Section 6A of the ISWD Act, 1956, the Central Government has notified a Scheme called Cauvery Water (implementation of the Order of 1991 and all subsequent Related Orders of the Tribunal) Scheme, 1998, consisting of Cauvery River Authority (CRA) and Cauvery Monitoring Committee (CMC). The Cauvery River Authority consists of the Prime Minister as Chairperson and Chief Ministers of the basin States as members. The Monitoring Committee consists of Secretary, MOWR as Chairperson, Chief Secretaries and Chief Engineers of the basin States as Members and Chairman, Central Water Commission as Member. The Authority is required to give effect to the implementation of the Interim Order dated » Final order of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal » Report and Decision of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
Short Title and Extent
Constitution of Tribunal
Adjudication of water disputes
Filling of Vacancies
Publication of Decision of Tribunal
Power to make schemes to implement decisions of tribunal
Powers of Tribunal
Maintenance of Data Bank and Information
Bar of jurisdiction of Supreme Court and other Courts
Power to make rules
Ravi And Beas Waters Tribunals
Surplus waters of Ravi & Beas rivers
Based on 1921-45 flow series the average flow of Ravi at Madhopur
and Beas at Mandi Plain was estimated to be 18.98 MAF. Following prepartition
uses were considered to estimate the available water for
utilization:-
Pre Partition uses MAF
(Million Acre Feet)
BCM
(Billion Cubic Metre)
Kashmir Canal (Jammu & Kashmir) 0.04 0.05
UBDC (Punjab) 1.48 1.83
Eastern Canal (Punjab) 0.50 0.62
Bikaner Canal 1.11 1.37
Total 3.13 3.87
Thus, the surplus waters of Ravi and Beas which would be available for
utilisation were 15.85 MAF(18.98 – 3.13 MAF). This quantity of water was
considered in 1955 and subsequently in 1976 for allocation of shares of
waters among the concerned states.
Sharing of surplus Ravi & Beas waters under agreement of 1955:-
The available waters of Ravi and Beas, over and above the preindependence
utilisation, were allocated in 1955 amongst the States of
Rajasthan, Punjab, J&K and PEPSU based on the available flow of 1921-45,
as under:-
State/Organisation MAF (Million Acre
Feet)
BCM (Billion Cubic
Metre)
Punjab 5.90 7.28
Rajasthan 8.00 9.87
Jammu & Kashmir 0.65 0.80
PEPSU* 1.30 1.60
Total 15.85 19.55
* PEPSU- Punjab & East Patila States Union
Reorganisation of Punjab and 1976 Notification of Govt. of India:-
After the reorganisation of Punjab in 1966, it became necessary to determine
the shares of Punjab and Haryana in the water allocated to erstwhile Punjab
State. This had to be done in accordance with the provisions in the Punjab
Reorganisation Act 1966.
Efforts were made by the concerned States of Punjab and Haryana to arrive
at an agreement on sharing of waters, but as they were unable to resolve the
matter within the stipulated period of two years as envisaged in Punjab
Reorganisation Act, the Government of Haryana made a reference to the
Government of India in 1969, requesting for a decision under Section 78(1)
of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.
Taking the totality of circumstances into account, it was decided that out of
the divisible pool of 8.88 BCM (7.2 MAF), 0.25 BCM (0.20 MAF) should go to
Delhi, and the remaining water should be equally divided among Punjab and
Haryana and thus each State was allocated 4.32 BCM (3.5 MAF). In
pursuance of the decision, a Notification to this effect was issued by Ministry
of Irrigation on 24.3.76.
The 1981 agreement:-
On 17.3.79 Govt. of Punjab served notice on Haryana under 80 CPC followed
by a suit in Supreme Court challenging the validity of 1976 Notification.
Govt. of Haryana also filed a suit in Supreme Court on 30.4.79 under Article
131 of the Constitution urging Govt. of India to implement the 1976 order.
After prolonged discussions another agreement was reached on 31.12.81 and
was signed by the Chief Ministers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan in the
presence of late Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India.
Based on 1921-60 flow series the average flow of Ravi at Madhopur and Beas
at Mandi Plain was estimated to be 20.56 MAF (25.37 BCM). After deducting
pre-partition uses and the losses in Madhopur Beas link (0.26 MAF/0.32
BCM) the net surplus Ravi-Beas water for allocation among the states was
20.56-3.13-0.26=17.17 MAF (21.19 BCM). This quantum of water was
considered for allocation during the agreement of 1981 among the concerned
states.
As per re-allocation made under this agreement, the allocations of various
states, considering available flow data for the period 1921-60, as under:-
State/ Organisation MAF
(Million Acre Feet)
BCM
(Billion Cubic Metre)
Punjab 4.22 5.21
Haryana 3.50 4.32
Rajasthan 8.60 10.61
Delhi Water Supply 0.20 0.25
Jammu & Kashmir 0.65 0.80
Total 17.17 21.19
This agreement envisaged completion of Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal also
within a maximum period of 2 years from the date of signing of this
agreement.
Further developments and Punjab settlement:-
Due to subsequent developments in Punjab, the issue of allocation of surplus
Ravi-Beas waters was re-opened. There were prolonged negotiations
thereafter which culminated in signing of the Punjab Settlement on
24.7.1985 at New Delhi between the then Prime Minister of India and Sant
Harchand Singh Longowal, the then President of Shromani Akali Dal.
The Interstate Water Disputes (ISWD) Act, 1956 was accordingly amended
and a new Section 14 incorporated in the Act so that Ravi & Beas Waters
Tribunal could be constituted.
After signing of the Memorandum of settlement between Sant Harchand
Singh Longowal and the then Prime Minister of India on 24.7.1985, Punjab
Legislative Assembly passed a Resolution on 5th November, 1985 repudiating
the said agreement of 31st December, 1981 and declaring the white paper
issued on 23rd April, 1982 as redundant and irrelevant.
Constitution of the Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal:-
In pursuance of paragraph 9 of the Rajiv-Longowal Accord and in exercise of
the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 14 of
the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (33 of 1956), the Central
Government constituted on 2nd April, 1986, the Ravi and Beas Waters
Tribunal for the verification and adjudication of the matters referred to in
paragraph 9.1 and 9.2, respectively, of the Punjab Settlement. On the same
day, in exercise of the powers conferred to it by sub-section (3) of Section 14
of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (33 of 1956), the Central
Government referred the following matters specified in paragraph 9.1 and
9.2 of the Punjab Settlement to the Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal
constituted under sub-section (1) of section (14) of the said Act, for
verification and adjudication, namely:-
1. The farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan will continue to get
water not less than what they were using from the Ravi-Beas system as on
1.7.1985. Waters used for consumptive purposes will also remain
unaffected. Quantum of usage claimed shall be verified by the Tribunal.
2. The claim of Punjab and Haryana regarding the shares in their
remaining waters will be adjudicated by the Tribunal”.
The Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal was a 3-member Tribunal and was
required to submit its report within a period of six months from the date of
reference to it, of the above matters specified in the Punjab Settlement.
The Tribunal’s Report of 1987 and further references to the
Tribunal:-
The Tribunal gave its report in January, 1987 which was forwarded to the
States in May, 1987. The Tribunal considered the availability of water as per
1921-60 flow series and also included 1.36 BCM of water available below Rim
stations. The Tribunal’s conclusions are as under:-
I. The quantum of water used by the farmers and other consumptive
users of the three party States as on Ist July 1985, was as under:
Punjab 3.106 MAF (This is inclusive of 0.352 MAF of permissive use
allowed by Rajasthan under clause (ii) of the 1981
agreement and subject thereto but is exclusive of the
pre-partition use of 1.98 MAF as well as 0.32 MAF in
Shah Nehar Canal areas.)
Haryana 1.620
Rajasthan 4.985 MAF
(This figure is exclusive of the pre-partition use 1.11
MAF)
II. On adjudication of the claims of Punjab and Haryana regarding the
shares in their remaining waters, the Tribunal decided and allocated
as under:-
Punjab: 5.00 MAF
Haryana: 3.83 MAF
Consequent to the Tribunal’s adjudication of the claims of Punjab
and Haryana in their remaining waters, the allocation of surplus Ravi-Beas
waters amongst the concerned States is as below:-
State/Organisation MAF
(Million Acre Feet)
BCM
(Billion Cubic Metre)
Punjab 5.00 6.17
Haryana 3.83 4.72
Rajasthan 8.60 10.61
Delhi Water Supply 0.20 0.25
Jammu & Kashmir 0.65 0.80
Total 22.55 18.28
The Tribunal also mentioned that SYL Canal is a life line for the
farmers of Haryana and unless it is expeditiously completed, Haryana will not
be in a position to utilise its full quantum of water allocated to it. It is,
therefore, necessary that all concerned should make a concerted effort to see
that construction of the canal is completed at an early date without loss of
further time.
While allocating the shares of water to Punjab and Haryana, the
Tribunal also considered the additional Ravi Beas waters below the Rim
Stations i.e. below Madhopur on Ravi and below Mandi Plain on Beas river to
the tune of 1.11 MAF.
Further developments and present status:-
As provided under Section 5(3) of the ISWD Act, 1956 the Central
Government and the States of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan sought, in
August 1987, explanation/guidance from the Tribunal. One of the Members
of the Tribunal resigned in March 1989 as he was promoted as a Judge of the
Supreme Court.
As the possibility of an amicable solution became bleak, the vacant
post was filled vide Gazette Notification dated 18.11.96. Hearing of the
Tribunal thereafter restarted in July ‘ 97.
Again on 4th January 1999, Shri U.C. Banerjee, a Member of The
Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal resigned from the post of Member, RBWT
consequent upon his elevation to the Bench of the Supreme Court of India .
The vacancy was filled up by a Gazette Notification dated 10.06.2003 and the
hearings have resumed again. The tenure of the Tribunal for forwarding its
further report has now been extended upto 05.08.2007 which is to be
extended further upto 05.02.08 on the tribunal’s request. There is no
provision in the Act which empowers the Govt. to dissolve the Tribunal save
section 12. The next date of hearing is scheduled for 22.09.07. Accordingly,
the tenure of the Tribunal will have to be extended.
The hearings of the Tribunal have however become dependent on
the outcome of a Presidential Reference filed on 22.07.04 on the validity of
the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004, which terminates all
agreements related to Ravi- Beas Waters.
