Setting up a single tribunal can be the way out
The Union Government's desire to set up a single, permanent water-sharing tribunal, to arbitrate various inter-State water-sharing disputes, makes sense. Once implemented, a single tribunal will supersede all existing inter-State tribunals that have been created as and when the need arose. Under the existing mechanism, States which have water-sharing dispute, have a separate tribunal, which functions on an ad hoc basis to resolve water woes. However, these tribunals have received a lot of flak, owing to the inordinate delays in the disposal of cases and also because of their failure to solve problems adequately.
For instance, it almost took 17 years to give an award on the Cauvery water dispute, which began in 1924. A Tribunal to end the conflict between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over Cauvery was set up in 1990, and the tribubal’s order came in 2007. Even then, matters did not end. The issue was taken up with the Supreme Court, which gave its final order in 2013. Sadly, even after the top court's intervention, both the States are still grappling with water problems. Now, an agency will be set up to maintain water data on a regular basis. The move will help avoid the hassle over data collection when a dispute arises. This is significantbecause, often States have questioned the data provided by the other side — further complicating matters.
A single water dispute resolution body will definitely streamline the redressal mechanism and also rationalise the award-giving process. But there is a lurking apprehension: Will a single tribunal be competent enough to deal with all the cases single-handedly and promptly when multiple tribunals have failedIJ History is replete with cases where inter-State tribunals have taken years, if not decades, to resolve an individual case. Also, given the fate of the Supreme Court's order in the Cauvery water-sharing case, where the respective States denied to comply with its order, will the States follow up on the new tribunalIJ Non-compliance of orders often leads to non-resolution of disputes, which may persist even when there is a single tribunal in place. It is the responsibility of the parties involved, to ensure that the verdict, be it of the tribunal or the court, is respected and implemented. States must be taken to task if they undermine the final award or decision. Apprehensions are also ripe that a single tribunal may bring the decision-making process to a halt unless it is well-equipped in terms of manpower and technology. The need of the hour, therefore, is to put in place a strong enforcement mechanism, combined with penalties in the event of non-enforcement of its orders. Though the setting up of a single tribunal cannot solve all the problems in one go, it is expected that provisions will be streamlined in time to come. A single tribunal will come as a specialised agency which will, hopefully, overcome some of the shortcomings of individual tribunals and end water politics forever.