Introduction
River water disputes are among India’s most intractable federal challenges. Governed by the Inter‑State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 and Article 262, they involve prolonged legal wrangles, delayed tribunal decisions, and political confrontations. From Krishna, Mahadayi, Kaveri, and Teesta to historic conflicts like Sutlej-Yamuna Link and cross-border treaties under the Indus Waters Treaty, the struggle between equitable allocation, state rights, and national equity continues—highlighting institutional weaknesses and the need for better cooperative frameworks.
Tribunal Delays & Judicial Gridlock
Krishna River Dispute
The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT-II), originally set up in April 2004, has received multiple extensions —most recently till July 31, 2026 on the government's approval, despite initial terms ending in 2025 ORF OnlineThe Times of IndiaThe Times of India+7The Week+7The Times of India+7.
In January 2025, in a victory for Telangana, the tribunal agreed to hear new Terms of Reference (ToR) under Section 3 of the Act before addressing project-wise allocations under Section 89. Andhra Pradesh has challenged this in the Supreme Court, delaying resolution further Deccan Chronicle+4The New Indian Express+4The Times of India+4.
Mahadayi & Ravi-Beas Cases
The Mahadayi Tribunal, constituted in 2010 for Goa–Karnataka–Maharashtra disputes, was recently extended by six months—yet remains unresolved after 14 years The Times of India+1The Times of India+1. The Ravi‑Beas Tribunal—India’s oldest (since 1986)—was extended again, reflecting systemic stagnation The Times of India+3The Economic Times+3The Times of India+3.
Active Coordination & Technical Interventions
Joint Committees in Telugu States
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh recently agreed to install telemetry at Krishna basin offtake points and form a high-powered committee—including the Central Water Commission—to oversee projects like Banakacharla and Polavaram. They will also establish river management boards for Godavari and Krishna The Times of India+3Deccan Chronicle+3The Times of India+3.
Supreme Court Mediation
In Punjab-Haryana SYL canal disputes, the Supreme Court directed both states to collaborate with the Centre for an amicable resolution—underscoring judicial efforts to encourage cooperative federalism The Times of India.
Other Longstanding & International Disputes
Kaveri & Hogenakkal
The Kaveri Water Dispute—pitting Tamil Nadu against Karnataka—is rooted in colonial-era agreements and today still governed by a 2007 tribunal verdict allocating water across riparian states. Attempts to revisit allocations persist with political resistance The Times of India+13Wikipedia+13ORF Online+13.
The Hogenakkal Project, a Tamil Nadu drinking water project on Kaveri, spurred conflict with Karnataka over perceived encroachment. Central mediation helped pause escalation, but the dispute remains emblematic of inter-state friction Wikipedia.
Teesta River (India–Bangladesh)
Although primarily bilateral, the Teesta dispute underscores how internal states’ concerns—as seen in West Bengal’s asserted resistance—delay international agreements. Despite Bangladesh and Indian negotiation efforts, unresolved politics continues to stall water-sharing treaties Wikipedia.
Structural Challenges & Governance Deficits
-
Institutional ambiguity: Article 262 bars Supreme Court intervention in tribunal decisions, yet appeals under Article 136 persist—creating jurisdictional ambiguity and delay ORF Online.
-
Ad hoc process: Tribunal extensions are granted under Section 5(3) of the Act, but absent enforceable timelines, disputes persist for decades—crippling resolution and federal confidence ORF OnlineThe Times of India.
-
Weak pre-litigation mediation: The proposed Interstate Water Disputes Amendment Bill envisions Dispute Resolution Committees, but these remain dormant in most cases The Times of India.
Impacts of Delayed Resolution
-
Local economies suffer from incomplete projects: The Kalasa‑Banduri Nala diversion intended for Karnataka’s drought–prone taluks is delayed over Goa–Maharashtra objections, depriving farmers of critical irrigation Deccan Chronicle+1The Times of India+1.
-
Flood risks: Maharashtra disputes Karnataka’s proposal to raise Almatti Dam height—claiming increased flooding risks—leading to potential Supreme Court escalation and parallel engineering countermeasures The Times of India.
-
Geopolitical ripple effects: Suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty amid heightened tensions has opened India to pursue strategic water infrastructure projects like the Tulbul barrage and Chenab lift—underscoring intertwined diplomacy and resource governance ft.com+1The Times of India+1.
Recommendations: Towards Institutional Reform
-
Empower pre-dispute mediation via DRCs
Operationalize Disputes Resolution Committees across river basins, ensuring resolution before tribunal escalation. -
Fix tribunal timelines
Amend the 1956 Act to enforce fixed adjudication periods (such as 3–5 years), with limited extensions subject to substantive justification. -
Enhance monitoring & accountability
Annual performance reviews of active tribunals should be published—including pending status, hearing frequency, and delays. -
Strengthen interstate coordination tools
Use telemetry, river management boards with technical experts, and shared dashboards for real-time water management data. -
Leverage national forums and ISC
Instruments such as the Inter-State Council or zonal commissions, alongside NITI Aayog, should mediate water conflict agendas before legal escalation. -
Consider constitutional clarification
Clarify the hierarchy between tribunal verdicts and Supreme Court appeals under Articles 262 and 136 to eliminate ambiguity.
Conclusion
India’s river water disputes underscore the deep tensions within federal governance—juxtaposing statutes, tribunal delays, political distrust, and ecological urgency. Long-standing disagreements, such as those over Krishna, Mahadayi, Kaveri, Teesta, and the Indus system highlight the need for durable resolution architectures.
Tribunal logjams, lack of enforceable timelines, weak mediation systems, and absence of coordinated data-sharing have hindered equitable outcomes. However, recent collaborative steps—like Krishna telemetry committees, SC mediation in SYL disputes, and fresh ToR restructuring—provide pathways for future reform.
Meaningful resolution requires clarity in institutional roles, strong preemptive mechanisms, and integrated federal dialogue before conflicts solidify in courts. With reforms, India can move from litigated gridlock to collaborative water governance—ensuring sustainable sharing, justice, and ecological stewardship of its interdependent river basins.