State of Orissa Vs.
Government of India & ANR.  INSC 240 (6 February 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)NO.443 of 2006 State
of Orissa ... Petitioner Government of India & Anr. ... Respondents
State of Orissa has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, wherein the Government of India has been made the
Respondent No.1 and the State of Andhra Pradesh has been made the Respondent
No.2, inter alia, for the following reliefs :- "a) direct the Government
of India to constitute an appropriate Tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter
State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and thereafter, refer to it the dispute 2
relating to the construction of Side Channel Weir and Flood Flow Canal Project
at Katragada on the river Vansadhara by the State of Andhra Pradesh;
b) issue a writ of
mandamus commanding the State of Andhra Pradesh to forbear from carrying on any
works of the proposed project;"
indicated in the very opening paragraph, the writ petition was filed by the
State of Orissa for a direction to the Central Government to constitute a Water
Disputes Tribunal under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and to refer
to the Tribunal the dispute contained in the complaint made by the State of
Orissa on 13th February, 2006, as to whether the State of Andhra Pradesh was
justified in constructing a Side Channel Weir and Flood Flow Canal Project on
the river Vansadhara at Katragada, which would adversely affect the supply of
water from the river to the State of Orissa and adversely affect the livelihood
of thousands of people of Orissa in glaring violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
order to understand the stand taken by the State of Orissa in the matter, it
would be necessary to set out the facts of the case giving rise to the dispute.
river Vansadhara originates in the South West of Lanjigarh in the Kalahandi
District of Orissa and continues its journey for 239 kms. before entering the
Bay of Bengal. Out of the said 239 kms., a length of 154 kms. lies in the State
of Orissa, 29 kms. forms the border between the State of Orissa and Andhra
Pradesh and the remaining 56 kms. lies within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The
said river and its valley is fed by the South-West monsoon beginning in the
middle of June and ending in the month of October each year and is followed by
the retreating monsoon and North-East monsoon till the end of January.
According to the State of Orissa, about 80% of the total volume of water comes
from the catchment area lying in Orissa. While the farmers in Andhra Pradesh
utilize 7 TMC of water from the river, the inhabitants of Orissa utilize 12 4
TMC for drinking purposes and water tanks etc. in the up-stream and down stream
the period from 1956-60, the State of Andhra Pradesh proposed the construction
of Gotta Barrage and Neradi Barrage across the Vansadhara river. During the
aforesaid period, many meetings were held between the officials of the two
State Governments to resolve the dispute of allocation of water. On 30th
September, 1962, an Agreement was signed by the Additional Chief Engineer of
Orissa and the Additional Secretary, PWD, of Andhra Pradesh, which was recorded
in Minutes dated 30th September, 1962. In 1971, the State of Andhra Pradesh
started construction of the Gotta Barrage (Vansadhara Stage-I) which was
completed in the year 1982. Thereafter, it also constructed Phase-I of Stage-II
of the Vansadhara project, i.e., right bank canal. Several meetings were held
between the officials, including the Chief Ministers of the two States, and
Agreements were signed pertaining to allocation of water of the Neradi Barrage.
On 30th 5 December, 1994, a meeting was held between the Chief Ministers of
the two States and it was decided that all the available water would be shared
between the two States on a 50:50 basis annually. The discussions relating to
the distribution of water from the Neradi Barrage were recorded and is
reproduced hereinbelow :
Government of Orissa
agrees in principle to the proposal of Government of Andhra Pradesh for going
ahead with the project subject to the following conditions.
(1) Hydrology data
available in the C.W.C. Water year Book upto 1992 was studied by the Orissa
Engineers. Based on this analysis it is found that in Vansadhara basin
approximately 76.47 TMC water is available in monsoon.
months the yield may approximately be 7 TMC. All the available water will be
shared between the two States on 50:50 basis annually. The above figure
regarding water availability would be updated from time to time on the basis of
additional data as and when available.
(2) No area in Orissa
will be submerged as a result of construction of the proposed Neradi Barrage,
except 106 acres of land to be acquired in Orissa 6 State for various purposes
as indicated in the Project Report.
(3) To ensure that
the back water stretch is limited only to 3 kms on the upstream, the river has
to be widened by removing construction between the chainage 10.37 to 13.65 kms
to the section as suggested in the supplementary mathematical model run by the
C.W.C. The Government of Orissa, in consultation with C.W.C. will however conduct
sensitivity studies within a period of 3 (three) months incorporating varying
`n' values which has not been carried out so far by the C.W.C. This study will
indicate the water surface profile upstream and downstream of the barrage and
the extent of likely back water stretch in Orissa. Based on the sensitivity
study the height and length of the wall may need revision, the design of which
will need to be agreed by the Orissa Government.
(4) A joint technical
committee consisting of the Engineer-in-Chief of both the States will be formed
to approve broad design and construction features of the barrage as well as
water sharing and flood management.
Sd/- Sd/- Shri N.T.
RAMA RAO Shri BIJU PATNAIK CHIEF MINISTER CHIEF MINISTER ANDHRA PRADESH
the meeting of the two Chief Ministers and the decision arrived at by them,
several meetings 7 were held between the officials of both the States in
regard to the allocation of water of the river flowing through both the States.
At this stage, while considering the technical design of the Neradi Barrage,
the Government of Andhra Pradesh announced a new project by investment of
Rs.850 crores. The Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh on 6th January, 2005,
announced that the waters of the Vansadhara river would be diverted at
Katragada to a 34 kms. long Flood Flow Canal and be stored in the Heeramandalam
reservoir to irrigate 1.07 lakh acres of land by utilizing 19 TMC of water. It
was apprehended by the State of Orissa that the said proposed project would deprive
the villagers of Orissa lying on the opposite bank in the down stream from even
dry-weather flow and there was also a possibility of shifting of the river
On 18th February,
2005, the Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of
Orissa, wrote to his counter-part in Andhra Pradesh protesting against the new
project. The said objection culminated in a meeting of the Ministers of the two
States on 24th February, 2005 at Hyderabad against the new proposal for the project
at Katragada and the said meeting ended with the following resolution:
of a Technical Committee with the Engineers from both the States to study all
aspects of Vansadhara Project Phase II of State-II, including submergence in
Orissa, if any, and submit the report not later than three months.
2) No work will be
taken up by both the States in the river bed or banks or on Flood flow Canal,
till the final Report of the Technical Committee is submitted and accepted by
both the Governments.
3) No work, which
will jeopardize the interest of any State, shall be taken up.
4) The relevant
Project information will be furnished to the Central Water Commission, as per
5) The delegation of
Ministers of both the States shall meet as frequently as possible to sort out
all the matters of mutual interest as regards to Irrigation Project......"
is the grievance of the State of Orissa that despite the resolution adopted at
the Inter-State meeting held on 24th February, 2005, whereby four meetings were
proposed to be held, no such meetings 9 were convened, and, on the other hand,
despite the undertaking given by the two States, the State of Andhra Pradesh
continued with its construction work on the Flood Flow Canal by continuing with
land acquisition and other preliminary works. Even Bhoomi Pujan was alleged to
have been conducted by the State of Andhra Pradesh in connection with the
aforesaid project. It is the said conduct of the officials of the State of
Andhra Pradesh, which resulted in the filing of the writ petition and also a
complaint under Section 3 of the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and the
Rules framed thereunder to the Union of India. Following the said complaint, an
Inter-State Meeting with Secretaries of the Irrigation/Water Resources
Departments of the two States was convened on 24th April, 2006 by the Secretary
(Water Resources), Government of India.
However, no action
was taken by the Government of India with regard to the request made by the
Government of Orissa to restrain the Government of Andhra Pradesh from going
ahead with the construction of the Vansadhara Phase-II of Stage-II 10
(Katragada Flood Flow Canal) or to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal under
Section 4(1) of the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred
to as "1956 Act"). While, on the one hand, the Government of India
remained inactive, the State of Andhra Pradesh proceeded with the work of the
Side Channel Weir and Flood Flow Canal at Katragada on the river Vansadhara
compelling the State of Orissa to move the instant writ petition for the
reliefs as indicated hereinbefore.
for the State of Orissa, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Advocate, submitted
that the dispute between the State of Orissa and the State of Andhra Pradesh
was in effect a "water dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of
the 1956 Act, as it relates to the apportionment of the waters of the
Vansadhara river between the two States which would be adversely affected by
the decision of the State of Andhra Pradesh to divert the waters of the said
river at Katragada to a 34 kms. long Flood Flow Canal for storage in the 11
Heeramandalam reservoir which would have the effect of depriving the
inhabitants in the State of Orissa in the downstream area of water for drinking
and for other purposes.
dispute" has been defined in Section 2(c) of the 1956 Act as follows :-
"Water dispute" means any dispute or difference between two or more
State Governments with respect to - (i) the use, distribution or control of the
waters of, or in, any Inter-state river or river valley; or (ii) 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 (iii) the
levy of any water-rate in contravention of the prohibition contained in Section
In this regard,
reference may also be made to Article 262 of the Constitution of India, which
provides as follows :- 12 "262. Adjudication of disputes relating to
waters of inter-State rivers or river valleys:- (1) 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 river or
anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the
Supreme Court nor any other Court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any
such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1)."
similar provision is contained in Section 11 of the 1956 Act, which reads as
follows :- "11. Bar of jurisdiction of Supreme Court and other Courts -
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."
the light of the above provisions, both of the 1956 Act and the Constitution,
and having regard to the inaction of the State authorities to settle 13 the
dispute, Mr. Ramachandran submitted that the State of Orissa was compelled to
file the complaint to the Central Government under Section 3 of the 1956 Act
for the constitution of a Tribunal in terms of Section 4 thereof.
considering the nature of the dispute, this Court on 30th April, 2007, urged
the parties, if possible, to arrive at a settlement, which did not prove
to Section 3 of the 1956 Act, Mr. Ramachandran contended that it was for the
State Government to arrive at a decision that a water dispute had arisen with
the Government of another State and subject to fulfilling the conditions
indicated in Section 3, it could request the Central Government to refer the
water dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication, as has been done in the instant
case. Mr. Ramachandran also referred to Section 4 of the 1956 Act, which deals
with the constitution of the Tribunal and submitted that when a request 14
under Section 3 was received from any State Government in respect of a water
dispute and the Central Government was of the opinion that the water dispute
could not be settled by negotiation, the Central Government would have to, by
notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal for
the adjudication of the water dispute.
urged that the provisions of both Sections 3 and 4 of the 1956 Act were
reflected in prayer (a) of the writ petition, in which a direction has been
sought on the Government of India to constitute an appropriate Tribunal under
Section 4 of the 1956 Act.
Ramachandran also pointed out that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
Union of India, it has been stated in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 that necessary
steps had already been taken pursuant to the complaint filed by the State of
Orissa in accordance with the provisions of the 1956 Act and the Government of
India was hopeful of a negotiated settlement of the dispute. In paragraph 3 it
has 15 been indicated that only in the event of failure of negotiations for
settlement of the water dispute, necessary steps may be taken or directions may
be issued for the constitution of a Tribunal.
Ramachandran urged that despite all efforts, a negotiated settlement has eluded
the parties and, on the other hand, the State of Andhra Pradesh has continued
with the construction work of the Side Channel Weir and Flood Flow Canal
Project at Katragada.
regard to the above, Mr. Ramachandran referred to the decision of this Court by
a Bench of three Judges in Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal
Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu Sangam vs. Union of India & Ors. (1990
(3) SCC 440), wherein in a similar application under Article 32 of the
Constitution regarding the equitable distribution of the waters of the river
Cauvery, a direction was sought on the Union of India for the constitution of a
Water Disputes Tribunal under the 16 1956 Act. While considering the
provisions of Section 4, this Court was of the view that in view of the
mandatory provisions of Section 4 by use of the word "shall", it was
both mandatory and obligatory on the part of the Central Government to
constitute an appropriate Tribunal and to refer the dispute to it. Having held
as above, this Court directed the Central Government to constitute such
Tribunal for adjudication of the water dispute indicated in the judgment. Mr.
Ramachandran submitted that a similar direction may also be issued in the
instant case in view of the failure of the Central Government to act in terms
of Section 4 on the complaint made by the State of Orissa under Section 3 of
the 1956 Act.
senior counsel, Mr. Dipankar Gupta, who appeared for the State of Andhra
Pradesh, at the very outset contended that the relief prayed for by the State
of Orissa in the Writ Petition was not a "water dispute" within the
meaning of Section 2(c) of the 1956 Act. Mr. Gupta submitted that in 17
principle both the States had agreed to the sharing of the waters of the
Vansadhara river on an equal basis and without disturbing the said arrangement,
the State of Andhra Pradesh had taken a decision to divert a part of the river
waters, within its allocation, to Katragada, to benefit a large number of
farmers living in the said region. Mr. Gupta urged that the construction of the
Side Channel Weir and the Flood Flow Canal at Katragada and the Neradi Barrage
was undertaken after a series of meetings and discussions held between the
Chief Ministers of the two States and at several inter-State meetings, in
particular the meeting held on 5th December, 2006, the State of Orissa agreed
for a mathematical model study of the side weir and the meeting in that
connection was scheduled to be held on 18th December, 2006, at Pune, at the
instance of the Central Water and Power Research Studies, Pune. Mr. Gupta
submitted that the representatives of the State of Andhra Pradesh attended the
said meeting where it was decided to conduct certain tests in relation to the
construction of the Weir at Katragada. Pursuant 18 to the meeting held on 5th
December, 2006, the State of Orissa agreed to conduct a Technical Committee
meeting on 5.1.2007, at Bhubaneswar. As it appears from the materials on record
such meeting did not in fact take place although in principle the State of
Orissa had agreed to the aforesaid constructions subject to the report of the
Technical Committee of the Government of Orissa.
Gupta submitted that despite the best efforts of the State of Andhra Pradesh,
owing to the non-cooperation on the part of the State of Orissa, the
construction of the Side Channel Weir and the Flood Flow Canal and the Neradi
Barrage were stalled.
Gupta reiterated his opening submission that there was, in fact, no dispute
which was required to be referred to a Water Disputes Tribunal to be
constituted under the 1956 Act, as both the States in principle had agreed to
sharing of the waters of the Vansadhara river on an equal basis. All that 19
was required was for the representatives of the States to sit together and with
the help of their representatives and Technical Committees arrive at a solution
whereby the aforesaid construction work could be undertaken without disturbing
the flow of water to the State of Orissa accenting to its entitlement.
submissions made by Mr. Dipankar Gupta were to some extent supported by the
stand taken on behalf of the Union of India. Referring to the averments made in
the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, Mr. Navin Prakash,
learned counsel, submitted that it had always been and is still the endeavor of
the Union of India to settle the dispute which has arisen between the two
States by a negotiated settlement. In fact, this submission has been repeated
throughout the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India and
orally it was also submitted that the Union of India was still making attempts
to solve the said disputes through negotiated settlement.
advancing submissions on the writ petition, submissions were also advanced by
learned counsel on prayer (b) in the writ petition praying for a Mandamus to
command the State of Andhra Pradesh from carrying on any work in respect of the
proposed project. Mr. Ramachandran contended that unless the State of Andhra
Pradesh was restrained from continuing with the construction of the Side
channel Weir and the Flood Flow Canal at Katragada till the constitution of the
Water Disputes Tribunal, not only would the writ petition become infructuous,
but even the constitution of the Tribunal would become redundant and
to Mr. Ramachandran's submissions, Mr. Dipankar Gupta referred to the
provisions of Sections 9 and 11 of the 1956 Act, and submitted that under
Section 11 not only all Courts, but also the Supreme Court would not be
entitled to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be
referred to a Tribunal under the Act.
Gupta submitted that in view of such bar, if it was ultimately decided that the
dispute between the two States was a water dispute and the same should be
referred to a Water Disputes Tribunal under the Act, this Court would have no
jurisdiction to pass any orders which were either of an interim or transitory
nature involving the dispute.
this regard Mr. Gupta referred to the views expressed by a Constitution Bench
of this Court on a Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution
involving the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal [1993 Supp (1) SCC 96(II)],
wherein the same question regarding the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under Section 11 of the 1956 Act read with Article 262 of the
Constitution was under consideration and it was held that the Tribunal could
pass interim orders in any pending water dispute when a reference for such
relief is made by the Central Government under Section 5(2) of the Act.
the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, including the Union
of India, it is quite evident that the final outcome of this writ petition
would depend upon the decision as to whether the dispute between the State of
Orissa and the State of Andhra Pradesh regarding the diversion of the
Vansadhara river waters by the construction of the Side Channel Weir and the
Flood Flow Canal constitutes a water dispute within the meaning of Section 2(c)
of the 1956 Act. Admittedly, in principle the two States had agreed to the
sharing of the Vansadhara river waters on an equal basis.
What we are called
upon to decide is whether the diversion of a portion of the river waters into a
Side Channel Weir and a Flood Flow Canal violates the said agreement and if it
does, whether the same would amount to a water dispute between the two States.
said proposal of diverting the waters of the river was disputed by the State of
Orissa from as 23 far back as in 2005, when the construction work on the said
two projects had just commenced. It is not disputed that several joint meetings
were held between the representatives of the two State Governments on this
issue, including several meetings between the Chief Ministers of the two
States. It is also evident that the Union of India, to whom the complaint had
been made by the State of Orissa on 13.2.2006, had made attempts to bring about
a negotiated settlement between the two States which did not materialize. On
the one hand the complaint made by the State of Orissa remains indisposed of,
and on the other, the construction of the Side Channel Weir and the Flood Flow
Canal and the Neradi Barrage had continued.
the hearing, an amendment made to Section 4 of the 1956 Act, which became
effective from 28.3.2002, was brought to our notice. Sub-section (1) of Section
4, which is relevant for our purpose originally read as follows:
24 "4. Constitution
of Tribunal.- (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, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Water
Disputes Tribunal for the adjudication of the water dispute."
After amendment of
sub-section (1) by the Inter- State Water Dispute (Amendment) Act, 2002, sub-
section (1) of Section 4 reads as follows:
of Tribunal.- (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 Dispute
Tribunal for the adjudication of the water dispute."
is important in the amendment is that in the event of a genuine water dispute
between two 25 States a time-frame has now been fixed for the constitution of
a Water Disputes Tribunal to settle the water dispute. Previously, there was no
such time frame and a request made for constitution of such a Tribunal could be
prolonged indefinitely, as has been done in the instant case, without the
formation of such a Tribunal or without rejecting the prayer of the State of
Orissa to constitute such a Tribunal. It is now almost three years since the
complaint was made by the State of Orissa but the Central Government has not
taken any action in the matter. In this scenario, the prayer made by the State
of Orissa does not appear to be unreasonable since the dispute between the two
States does not confine itself to the construction of the Side Channel Weir and
the Flood Flow Canal, but primarily it involves the unilateral decision taken
by the State of Andhra Pradesh to divert the river waters to the State of
Andhra Pradesh, which could possibly disturb the agreement to share the waters
of the river equally.
my view, such a dispute must be held to be a water dispute within the meaning
of Section 2(c) (i) of the 1956 Act, which refers to any dispute between two or
more State Governments with regard to the use, distribution or control of the
waters of or/in any inter-State river or river valley. Moreover, the time frame
inserted into Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act also persuades me to
grant the reliefs prayed for by the State of Orissa since its complaint is
pending from 13.2.2006.
to the question of grant of interim order during the interregnum, I am
satisfied that unless some interim protection is given till the constitution of
the Water Disputes Tribunal by the Central Government, the objection raised by
the State of Orissa will be rendered infructuous, which certainly is not the
intention of the 1956 Act.
powers vested by Section 9 of the Act in the Water Disputes Tribunal to be
constituted by the Central Government under Section 4, which includes the power
to grant the interim 27 order, this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
has ample jurisdiction to pass interim orders preserving the status quo till a
Tribunal is constituted which can then exercise its powers under Section 9. The
bar under Section 11 of the Act will come into play once the Tribunal is
constituted and the water dispute is referred to the said Tribunal.
Till then, the bar of
Section 11 cannot operate, as that would leave a party without any remedy till
such time as the Tribunal is formed, which may be delayed.
accordingly, allow the writ petition and direct the Central Government to
constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal within a period of six months from date
and to refer to it the dispute relating to the construction of the Side Channel
Weir and Flood Flow Canal Project at Katragada on the river Vansadhara by the
State of Andhra Pradesh for diversion of the waters of the said river which
could adversely 28 affect the supply of water from the said river to the State
also direct that pending constitution of the Water Disputes Tribunal and
reference of the above dispute to it, the State of Andhra Pradesh will maintain
status quo as of date with regard to the construction of the Side Channel Weir
and the Flood Flow Canal at Katragada. Once the Tribunal is constituted the
parties will be free to apply for further interim orders before the Tribunal.
writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
will be no order as to costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.
443 OF 2006 State of Orissa .. Petitioner -versus- Government of India &
Anr. .. Respondent (s)
Markandey Katju, J.
have perused the judgment of my learned brother Hon'ble Altamas Kabir, J. in
this case and I entirely agree with the reasoning, the conclusion and the
directions which have been given therein. However, I wish to add a few words of
English poet Coleridge in his poem `The Rime of the Ancient Mariner' wrote :-
"Water, Water everywhere, but not a drop to drink"
is precisely the situation of the people living in large parts of India.
Despite having immense reservoirs of water in the form of the Himalayas in the
North and the Arabian sea, Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal in the West,
South and East of India, there are water shortages everywhere often leading to
riots, road blocks and other disturbances and disputes for getting water. In
many cities, in many colonies people get water for half an hour in a day, and
sometimes not even that e.g. in Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, U.P., Northeast,
etc.. In large parts of rural areas there is shortage of water for irrigation
and drinking purpose. Rivers in India are drying up, ground water is being
rapidly depleted, and canals are polluted. The Yamuna in Delhi looks like a
black drain. Several perennial rivers like the Ganga and Brahamputra are
rapidly becoming seasonal.
Rivers are dying or
declining, and aquifers are getting over-pumped.
etc. are pumping out groundwater at an alarming rate, causing sharp decline in
the groundwater levels. Farmers are having a hard time finding ground water for
their crops e.g. in Punjab. In many places 32 there are serpentine queues of
exhausted housewives waiting for hours to fill their buckets of water. In this
connection John Briscoe has authored a detailed World Bank report, in which he
has mentioned that despite this alarming situation there is widespread
complacency on the part of the authorities in India.
there are disputes between States in India relating to the waters of inter
State rivers, as in the present case. To resolve these disputes Parliament has
enacted the Inter State Water Dispute Act, 1956, which was amended in 2002.
This Act has provided for a mechanism for resolving such water disputes between
States through Tribunals constituted under Section 4 of the Act.
has shown that while such Tribunals have played a role in resolving such
disputes to a certain extent, but they have not, and cannot resolve the water
shortage problem permanently. For instance if there is a dispute between State
A and State B relating to water, and if the Tribunal decides in favour of State
A then the farmers and persons living in urban areas in State B often resort to
agitations which may even lead to violence.
Hence the real
solution of the water shortage problem in the country can 33 only lie in
utilizing the immense water reserves in the sea and in the snow mountains by
scientific methods. Rain water must also be scientifically managed.
regards sea water, the basic problem is how to convert saline water into fresh
water through an inexpensive method. The methods tried till now have been
distillation and reverse osmosis, but these are expensive methods. We have to
find out inexpensive methods for this, by scientific research. Similarly, the
immense water reserves in the Himalayas in the form of ice can be utilized for
the people of the North and Central Indian States.
my opinion, it is science which can solve this problem.
is indeed sad that a country like India which solved the problem of town
planning 6000 years ago in the Indus Valley Civilization and which discovered
the decimal system in Mathematics and Plastic Surgery in Medicine in ancient
times, and is largely managing Silicon Valley in U.S.A. today has been unable
to solve the problem of water shortage till now. In my opinion there is no
dearth of eminent scientists in the field who can 34 solve this problem, but
they have not been organized and brought together and not been requested by the
Central and State Governments to solve this problem, nor given the facilities
my opinion the right to get water is a part of right to life guaranteed by
Article 21 of the Constitution. In this connection, it has been observed in
Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking and Anr. vs. State of
Haryana and Ors. 1996(2) SCC 572 :
"Water is a gift
of nature. Human hand cannot be permitted to convert this bounty into a curse,
an oppression. The primary use to which water is put being drinking, it would
be mocking nature to force the people who live on the bank of a river to remain
in Chameli Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1996(2) SCC 549 this
Court observed :
to live guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water,
decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human
rights known to any civilized society. All civil, political, social and
cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
Convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these
basic human rights."...........
same view was taken in several other decisions by this Court in various other
therefore, recommend to the Central Government to immediately constitute a body
of eminent scientists in the field who should be requested to do scientific research
in this area on a war footing to find out scientific ways and means of solving
the water shortage problem in the country. This body of scientists should be
given all the financial, technical and administrative help by the Central and
State Governments for this purpose.
They should be
requested by the Central and State Governments to do their patriotic duty to
the nation in this connection, and by scientific research to find out the ways
of solving the water shortage problem in the country. The help and advice of
foreign scientific experts and/or Indian scientists settled abroad who are
specialized in this field may also be taken, since the solution to the problem
will not only help India but also foreign countries which are facing the same
problem, some of which may already have progressed significantly in this area.
particular this body of scientists should be requested to perform the following
(i) To find out an
inexpensive method or methods of converting saline water into fresh water.
(ii) To find out an
inexpensive and practical method of utilizing the water, which is in the form
of ice, in the Himalayas.
(iii) To find out a
viable method of utilizing rain water.
(iv) To utilize the
flood water by harnessing the rivers so that the excess water in the floods,
may instead of causing damage, be utilized for the people who are short of
water, or be stored in reservoirs for use when there is drought.
my opinion the Central Government should constitute such a body of scientists
immediately and give them all the help failing which the hardships of the
people of India will further increase causing great suffering and social unrest
everywhere. The problem brooks no delay for being addressed not even for a day.
the end I would like to quote the couplet of the great Hindi poet Rahim:
jkfB;s]fcu ikuh lc lwu ikuh x;s uk Ecjs] e(rh] ekuqT] pwu_ 37 "Rahiman
paani raakhiye, bin paani sab soon Paani gaye na oobrey, moti, manush ,
Pages: 1 2 3