Key Facts

  • Demand: Punjab seeks Rs 1.44 lakh crore from Rajasthan for 18,000 cusecs of Sutlej water (since 1960).
  • Historical Basis: 1920s commercial agreement between Maharaja Ganga Singh (Bikaner) and undivided Punjab; royalty payments ceased around 1960.
  • Indus Waters Treaty (1960): Gave India unrestricted use of eastern rivers (Sutlej, Beas, Ravi), shifting water sharing to inter‑state allocations.
  • Tripartite Agreement (1981): Punjab, Haryana & Rajasthan allocated 8.6 million acre‑feet to Rajasthan – the largest share despite being a non‑riparian state.
  • Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004: Attempted to scrap water‑sharing pacts; Supreme Court (2016) upheld that a state cannot unilaterally terminate inter‑state agreements.
  • Current Claim: Punjab invokes the riparian principle, arguing Rajasthan, not being in the Sutlej basin, should not receive the largest share.

Background & Context

  • The Sutlej originates in Himachal Pradesh, flows through Punjab, and enters Pakistan. Rajasthan receives water via the Gang (Bikaner) Canal.
  • Post‑1960, water allocation became a political issue rather than a commercial royalty.
  • The dispute reflects broader inter‑state water tensions across India, e.g., Cauvery, Krishna, and Narmada.

Constitutional & Legal Provisions

  • State List (Entry 17): Water supply, irrigation, canals – primarily a State subject.
  • Union List (Entry 56): Regulation & development of inter‑state rivers – Central competence.
  • Article 262: Empowers Parliament to adjudicate inter‑state river disputes and can bar Supreme Court jurisdiction.
  • Inter‑State River Water Disputes Act, 1956: Provides for formation of tribunals; their awards have the force of a Supreme Court decree.
  • Key Supreme Court Judgments:
  • Punjab Termination of Agreements Act (2016) – Unconstitutional unilateral termination.
  • Karnataka v. Tamil Nadu (2018) – Recognised drinking water needs and national asset concept.
  • Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) – Water as part of Right to Life (Art 21).

Reasons for Rising Inter‑State Water Disputes

  • Water Scarcity: Per‑capita availability fell from 5,200 m³ (1950) to ~1,500 m³ (2024); projected 1,191 m³ (2050).
  • Agricultural Intensification: Water‑intensive crops (paddy, sugarcane) deplete groundwater; Punjab’s extraction rate 156.36 % of recharge.
  • Jurisdictional Overlap: State vs. Union powers create “conflictual federalism.”
  • Political Mobilisation: Water issues are used as vote‑bank politics.
  • Riparian vs. Non‑Riparian Claims: Upper‑river states claim primary rights; downstream states rely on historic usage.
  • Tribunal Delays: Awards can take decades (e.g., Cauvery >30 years).

Measures for Resolution

  • Benefit‑Sharing Model: Shift from volumetric allocation to shared benefits (crop specialization, energy‑water nexus).
  • Digital Twins of River Basins: 3‑D AI‑driven models for scenario analysis.
  • Permanent Inter‑State Water Tribunal: Institutional memory, specialised benches (proposed ISWD Amendment Bill, 2019).
  • Mediation‑First Approach: Neutral expert committees before litigation.
  • Demand‑Side Management: Mandatory adoption of drip irrigation, mulching; enforce a river‑health water budget.
  • Cooperative Federalism: Joint projects (canal linking, shared storage) with “Blue Grants” for high‑performing states.

Conclusion

The Punjab‑Rajasthan case epitomises the shift from traditional water‑sharing to survival‑sharing in a water‑stressed nation. Effective resolution demands legal reforms, technological tools, and a cooperative federal ethos.

Mains Practice Question

Discuss the constitutional and legal mechanisms available for resolving inter‑state water disputes. Evaluate their effectiveness.

FAQs

  1. Core legal basis of Punjab’s claim? Riparian principle and a colonial‑era commercial agreement.
  2. Which constitutional article deals with water disputes? Article 262.
  3. What is the riparian principle? Primary rights to river water for states through which the river naturally flows.
  4. Role of the ISWD Act, 1956? Provides for tribunal adjudication; awards are binding like Supreme Court orders.