Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal Dispute

Arguments of two States regarding the Sutlej-Yamuna Dispute:

Punjab: Punjab was against sharing waters of the two rivers with neighbouring Haryana, citing riparian principles, which state that the owner of land adjacent to a water body has the right to use the water, besides arguing that it had no water to share.

Haryana: Haryana has been staking claim to the Ravi-Beas waters through the SYL Canal on the plea that providing water for irrigation was a tough task for the State. In southern parts, where underground water had depleted up to 1700 feet, there is a problem of drinking water. Haryana has been citing its contribution to the central food pool and arguing that it is being denied its rightful share in the water as assessed by a tribunal.

Arrangements to settle Inter-State Water Disputes

Constitutional Arrangements

• Schedule 7 of the Constitution: It distinguishes between the use of water within a State and the purpose of regulating interstate waters.
• Union List: Entry 56, gives the Parliament the power to formulate laws and mechanisms for regulating inter-state rivers.
• State List: Under Entry 17, States retain autonomy regarding water utilisation for purposes such as water supply, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power subject to provisions of Entry 56 of List 1 (Union List).
• Article 262: In case of disputes relating to waters, Parliament may by law provide 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 rivers.

Statutory Arrangements

• River Board Act, 1956: The River Boards are supposed to advise on the inter-state basins to prepare development scheme and to prevent the emergence of conflicts.
• Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956: If a particular State or States approach the Union Government for the constitution of the tribunal:
  1. (a) Central Government should try to resolve the matter by consultation among the aggrieved States;
  2. (b) In case, consultation does not work, then the Union Government may constitute the tribunal.

Recommendation

• The Sarkaria Commission has suggested that the awards of the tribunals be given the same weight as a Supreme Court Judgment.
• There is a need to establish a time frame for constituting the Tribunal by the Union Government. Tribunals should also try to avoid unnecessary delays in giving the award.
• Inter-State Council can be rejuvenated to enable it to play a more active role in settlement of such disputes.