Single tribunal with multiple benches good idea
The introduction of a Bill in the lok Sabha to set up a single permanent tribunal to address disputes relating to river water sharing is a good initiative. The Bill still has a long way to go and will be discussed and debated at length. It is possible that amendments will be suggested and some of them will be accepted. But there is no denying the fact that the country needs an effective mechanism to settle the recurring issue. It's not just one case; there are several rivers and many States which are litigants. Besides, the Union Government gets dragged as well and is then accused of partisanship. Violence breaks out in States because water is an emotive issue, made further potent with the introduction of regional pride. The recent instance of the Cauvery water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu — which led to widespread violence — is fresh in memory. This was not the first and may not be the last in line. There is one just way to resolve such matters: Speedy resolution through a permanent mechanism. Of course, this must be backed by inputs from bipartisan experts. As of now, there are multiple water dispute tribunals (eight in all) grappling with different river water issues. A single tribunal, with multiple benches, should speed up hearing and verdicts. Besides having a single tribunal, the Bill also seeks to pave the way for the establishment of a single agency to operate information systems and maintain a database of various inter-State rivers, the sharing of their waters, the quantum of sharing in different times of the year etc.
There has been criticism that the awards which the tribunals give, are often flawed, not to speak of being delayed. It has led to increasing litigation in the courts. The Bill seeks to address this acrimonious matter as well, by proposing the creation of a dispute resolution committee.
This panel will attempt to resolve differences between warring States in an institutionalised way. Only when the committee fails in its attempt, will the matter go to the tribunal. This way, the tribunal will be saved from being over-burdened as well. Among the best features of the Bill is that it has a provision to settle disputes within four-and-a-half years. This is marked departure from the present situation, where there is no time limit. Cases have dragged on for not just years but also decades. This has had disastrous consequences, because the failure in a reasonable period of time to resolve keeps the issue boiling and erupting from time to time. Again, the Cauvery dispute is a grim reminder of the reality. There can now be some quibbling on whether the Union Government should have consulted the State Governments on the matter before introducing the Bill in Parliament, given that water is a State subject. But the Centre did have the constitutional right to bring in the Bill — under Article 262 of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to enact laws for the purpose. It can only be hoped that the new idea finds favour with our lawmakers.