Consider the following statements regarding Legal status of Tribunal awards vis-a-vis Supreme Court jurisdiction:
1. Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court retains the power to grant special leave to appeal against the decisions of inter-state water dispute tribunals.
2. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted in 1990 under the provisions of the 1956 Act to address the water-sharing conflict between the states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry.
3. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill of 2019 proposes the establishment of a permanent Disputes Resolution Committee to resolve river water disputes before referring them to a tribunal.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct because Article 136 grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to hear appeals against any tribunal decision, overriding the bar under Article 262. Statement 2 is correct as the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was indeed established in 1990 under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, to adjudicate the dispute involving the specified states and union territory. Statement 3 is correct because the 2019 Amendment Act introduced a mandatory Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) to attempt an amicable settlement before a dispute is referred to the permanent Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Permanent Indus Commission:
1. The Indus Waters Treaty designates the Beas, Ravi, and Sutlej as Eastern Rivers, while the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab are categorized as Western Rivers.
2. If the Commission fails to reach an agreement on a question of interpretation or application of the treaty, the matter is referred to the two governments for resolution through diplomatic channels.
3. Under the provisions of the treaty, the Commission meets regularly at least once a year, alternating between India and Pakistan, to discuss matters related to the river systems.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
The Indus Waters Treaty (1960) allocates the three Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India and the three Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan, making statement 1 correct. If the Permanent Indus Commission cannot resolve a dispute, Article IX mandates the matter be escalated to the two governments for diplomatic negotiation, and if that fails, to a Neutral Expert or Court of Arbitration, confirming statement 2. Finally, Article VIII of the treaty stipulates that the Commission must meet regularly at least once a year, alternating its sessions between India and Pakistan, which validates statement 3.
Consider the following statements regarding Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and final award implementation:
1. The 1924 agreement between the Madras Presidency and the Princely State of Mysore established the Krishna Raja Sagara dam, which remains the primary regulatory mechanism under the 2018 Supreme Court judgment.
2. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted by the Government of India on 2 June 1990 under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
3. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal submitted its interim report in 1991, which was subsequently integrated into the Inter-State River Water Disputes Amendment Act of 2002.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was indeed constituted on 2 June 1990 under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 2018 Supreme Court judgment superseded the 1924 agreement, establishing the Cauvery Water Management Scheme rather than relying on the 1924 agreement as the primary regulatory mechanism. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Tribunal's final award was notified by the Central Government in 2013, not integrated into any 2002 amendment act.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Central Water Commission in dispute resolution:
1. The Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal was set up in 1986 under the Punjab Settlement, and the Central Water Commission holds the power to modify the tribunal's allocation of surplus water.
2. The Central Water Commission functions as an attached office of the Ministry of Jal Shakti, providing technical assistance in the adjudication of inter-state water disputes under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
3. The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal award of 1979 includes provisions for the Sardar Sarovar Project, and the project's dam height is subject to annual review by the Supreme Court of India.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the Central Water Commission is an attached office under the Ministry of Jal Shakti that provides essential technical data and expertise to tribunals formed under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. Statement 1 is incorrect because tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies whose awards are final and binding, and the CWC lacks the legal authority to modify their allocations. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal award governs the project, the dam height is regulated by the Narmada Control Authority, not through annual reviews by the Supreme Court.
Consider the following statements regarding Riparian rights vs. Doctrine of Equitable Apportionment:
1. The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, formed in 1969, utilized the Helsinki Rules of 1966 to determine the equitable share of water, and its 1980 report was published in the Gazette of India under the authority of the Supreme Court.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 was enacted to address the limitations of the earlier 1924 Rules under the Government of India Act, 1919, concerning river water sharing.
3. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, constituted in 1969, adopted the principle of equitable apportionment to allocate the available water among the riparian states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the 1956 Act was enacted under Article 262 to replace the inadequate 1924 Rules, and Statement 3 is correct because the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal applied the doctrine of equitable apportionment to balance the competing needs of the riparian states. Statement 1 is incorrect because, while the Godavari Tribunal did utilize the Helsinki Rules, its final award is published by the Central Government in the Official Gazette under the 1956 Act, not under the authority of the Supreme Court, which is barred from adjudicating such disputes by Article 262.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional provisions under Article 262:
1. Article 262 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to provide by law 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 river valley.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Act of 2019 introduces a Dispute Resolution Committee, which serves as the final appellate authority before a case is referred to the permanent tribunal.
3. Article 262 encompasses the power of the Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts in matters related to the apportionment of waters between the Union and the States.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 262 explicitly empowers Parliament to legislate for the adjudication of inter-state river water disputes. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) is a mandatory mediation body meant to resolve disputes amicably within a year, not an appellate authority; it acts before a tribunal is constituted. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while Article 262 allows Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of courts, it specifically applies to disputes between States or between the Union and States regarding inter-state rivers, but it does not empower Parliament to exclude the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) or the High Courts' jurisdiction under Article 226 in all scenarios.
Consider the following statements regarding Establishment of the Permanent Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal:
1. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, constituted in 1990, was the first body to be absorbed into the Permanent Tribunal framework following the notification of the 2019 Act in the Official Gazette.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 was repealed by the 2019 Amendment, which transferred all pending cases from the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal to the newly formed Supreme Court bench.
3. The 2019 Act establishes a Dispute Resolution Committee chaired by the Union Minister of Jal Shakti, which holds the authority to pass final binding awards on river water sharing before a tribunal is convened.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 2019 Act provides for a single Permanent Tribunal to adjudicate all future disputes, but existing tribunals like the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal continue to function until their dissolution. Statement 2 is incorrect as the 1956 Act was amended, not repealed, and pending cases remain with existing tribunals rather than being transferred to a Supreme Court bench. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Dispute Resolution Committee is chaired by a nominee of the Union Government and is tasked with amicable settlement; it lacks the authority to pass binding awards, as that power remains exclusively with the Tribunal.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Permanent Indus Commission:
1. The Permanent Indus Commission consists of three members from each country, and it was formed following the 1948 Inter-Dominion Agreement to oversee the partition of water rights.
2. Each country appoints one Commissioner to the Permanent Indus Commission, and these individuals hold the rank of Secretary to their respective governments.
3. The Permanent Indus Commission was established under Article VIII of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty to serve as a regular channel of communication between India and Pakistan.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Permanent Indus Commission was established under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, not the 1948 Inter-Dominion Agreement. Statement 2 is correct as the treaty mandates each country to appoint one Commissioner, who holds the rank of Secretary to their respective government. Statement 3 is correct because Article VIII of the 1960 Treaty explicitly created the Commission to serve as a regular channel of communication and to resolve potential disputes regarding the implementation of the treaty.
Consider the following statements regarding Legislative competence of states in water resource management:
1. Under the Seventh Schedule, the Union Government maintains legislative authority over water power development, and the 1948 Damodar Valley Corporation Act serves as the primary template for all subsequent inter-state river projects.
2. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, constituted in 1969, delivered its final award in 1973, which was subsequently published in the Official Gazette under Section 6 of the 1956 Act.
3. The Cauvery Water Management Scheme, notified by the Union Government in 2018, establishes a permanent authority to implement the final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because while Entry 56 of the Union List allows Parliament to regulate inter-state rivers, water is primarily a State subject under Entry 17 of the State List, and there is no single 'template' act like the DVC Act for all projects. Statement 2 is correct as the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal was indeed constituted in 1969 under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, and its 1973 award was gazetted. Statement 3 is correct because the Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018, was notified by the Centre to implement the 2007 Tribunal award, establishing the permanent Cauvery Water Management Authority.
Consider the following statements regarding Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 provisions:
1. Under the 1956 Act, the decision of a water disputes tribunal, once published in the Official Gazette by the Central Government, carries the same weight as an order of the Supreme Court.
2. Under the provisions of the 1956 Act, the tribunal is composed of three judges nominated by the Supreme Court, and its final award is subject to ratification by the Parliament of India.
3. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act includes provisions for the creation of a River Board, which serves as the primary investigative body to collect hydrological data before a tribunal is formally constituted.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because Section 6 of the Act mandates that a tribunal's decision, once published in the Official Gazette, is final and binding on the parties, possessing the same authority as a Supreme Court decree. Statement 2 is incorrect because the tribunal members are nominated by the Chief Justice of India, not the Supreme Court as a body, and the award does not require parliamentary ratification. Statement 3 is incorrect because the River Boards Act, 1956, is a separate piece of legislation from the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, and the latter does not include provisions for the creation of such boards.
Consider the following statements regarding Inter-state river water sharing and Seventh Schedule entries:
1. Entry 17 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule provides states with authority over water, including water supplies and irrigation, subject to the provisions of Entry 56 of the Union List and the River Boards Act of 1956.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2019, introduces a permanent tribunal to handle all water disputes, replacing the ad-hoc tribunal system established under the 1956 Act.
3. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted in 1990 under the provisions of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, and its final award was notified by the Central Government in the Gazette of India in 2002.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Entry 17 of the State List is subject to Entry 56 of the Union List, but the River Boards Act of 1956 was never effectively implemented to regulate inter-state rivers. Statement 2 is incorrect as the 2019 Amendment Act provides for a permanent 'Disputes Resolution Committee' for amicable settlement and a single permanent tribunal with multiple benches, rather than replacing the system with a single tribunal. Statement 3 is incorrect because, although the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted in 1990, its final award was notified by the Central Government in 2013, not 2002.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Permanent Indus Commission:
1. The Commission oversees the implementation of the 1972 Simla Agreement regarding the Indus basin, and it functions as the primary appellate body for resolving territorial water disputes between the two nations.
2. The Commission is tasked with the general responsibility of arranging for technical inspections of the rivers by the Commissioners at least once every five years.
3. The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty includes provisions for the World Bank to chair the Commission's annual meetings, and the first such meeting took place in New Delhi in 1961.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because Article VIII of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty mandates that the Permanent Indus Commission arrange for technical inspections of the rivers by the Commissioners at least once every five years. Statement 1 is incorrect as the Commission oversees the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, not the 1972 Simla Agreement, and it serves as a cooperative mechanism rather than an appellate body for territorial disputes. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Treaty does not provide for the World Bank to chair the Commission's meetings, and the Commission functions independently of the World Bank in its routine administrative and technical proceedings.
Consider the following statements regarding Parliamentary power to adjudicate inter-state water disputes:
1. Article 262 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution, or control of the waters of any inter-state river.
2. The River Boards Act of 1956 provides for the establishment of advisory boards for the regulation and development of inter-state rivers, and it functions under the administrative oversight of the Ministry of Power.
3. The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal was formed in 1968 to address riparian issues, and its final award was published in 1980 under the authority of the Inter-State Water Council established by the 1956 Act.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 262 empowers Parliament to legislate on inter-state river disputes and excludes the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court in such matters. Statement 2 is incorrect because the River Boards Act, 1956, functions under the Ministry of Jal Shakti (formerly Ministry of Water Resources), not the Ministry of Power. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal was established under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, not an 'Inter-State Water Council', and the Act provides for ad-hoc tribunals rather than permanent councils for adjudication.
Consider the following statements regarding Exclusion of Supreme Court jurisdiction under Article 262(2):
1. The River Boards Act of 1956 provides for the establishment of advisory boards to advise state governments on the development of inter-state rivers, and its provisions are subject to the original jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226.
2. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal was established in 1969 under the provisions of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, and its final award remains subject to appellate review by the Supreme Court under Article 136.
3. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2019, proposes the establishment of a permanent Disputes Resolution Committee to resolve inter-state water disputes before referring them to a tribunal.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as the 2019 Amendment Act mandates a Disputes Resolution Committee (DRC) to attempt amicable settlement before a dispute is referred to the permanent Tribunal. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 262(2) empowers Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and any other court, and the River Boards Act does not grant High Court jurisdiction over such disputes. Statement 2 is incorrect because, under Article 262 and the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, the award of a tribunal has the same force as a decree of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court is explicitly barred from exercising jurisdiction over these water disputes.
Consider the following statements regarding Exclusion of Supreme Court jurisdiction under Article 262(2):
1. Article 262(2) of the Constitution empowers Parliament to provide by law that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution, or control of the waters of any inter-State river.
2. Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 provides that the Supreme Court or any other court shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to a Tribunal under the Act.
3. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 was enacted by Parliament under the authority granted by Article 262 to resolve water-sharing conflicts between states.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Article 262(2) explicitly empowers Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts in inter-State river water disputes, a power exercised through Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. This Act was enacted by Parliament under the mandate of Article 262 to provide a specialized adjudicatory mechanism via Tribunals, thereby barring judicial interference in matters referred to these bodies. All three statements are factually correct as they accurately reflect the constitutional provision and the corresponding statutory framework governing the resolution of water-sharing conflicts.
Consider the following statements regarding Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal and riparian state claims:
1. The 2004 Brijesh Kumar Tribunal was formed after the Supreme Court intervened in the riparian dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka regarding the height of the Almatti Dam, which was completed in 1998.
2. The 1973 Bachawat Award included a provision for the creation of the Krishna River Management Board, which became operational under the administrative control of the Ministry of Power.
3. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal of 1969 was established following the recommendations of the Gulhati Commission, which submitted its report on basin-wide irrigation potential in 1965.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal (KWDT-II) was constituted in 2004 under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, not due to a Supreme Court intervention regarding the Almatti Dam height. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) was constituted by the Union Government in 2014 under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, not the 1973 Bachawat Award, and it functions under the Ministry of Jal Shakti. Statement 3 is incorrect because the first KWDT (1969) was established by the Central Government following requests from the riparian states (Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh) under the 1956 Act, and it was not based on the recommendations of a Gulhati Commission.
Consider the following statements regarding Parliamentary power to adjudicate inter-state water disputes:
1. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, established in 1969, issued its final report in 1973, which was subsequently reviewed by a second tribunal constituted in 2004 to address further grievances.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019, proposes the creation of a permanent Disputes Resolution Committee to resolve water disputes through mediation before referring them to a tribunal.
3. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted by the Government of India in June 1990 to address the long-standing water-sharing conflict between the states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal was indeed established in 1969 with a final report in 1973 and a second tribunal formed in 2004; the 2019 Amendment Bill introduced a permanent Disputes Resolution Committee for mandatory mediation; and the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was formally constituted in June 1990 to adjudicate the dispute among the four riparian stakeholders. Since all statements accurately reflect the historical and legislative facts regarding inter-state water governance in India, there are no incorrect statements.
Consider the following statements regarding Impact of climate change on inter-state water sharing agreements:
1. The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty includes a provision for the automatic suspension of water deliveries to Pakistan during periods where the Chenab river flow drops below the 1950 historical average due to drought.
2. The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal report of 1980 introduced a dynamic climate-adjustment coefficient that automatically recalibrates state water shares based on annual rainfall data from the IMD.
3. Article 262 of the Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to provide for the adjudication of any dispute with respect to the use, distribution, or control of the waters of any inter-state river.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as Article 262 empowers Parliament to adjudicate inter-state river water disputes, leading to the enactment of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty is a rigid bilateral agreement that does not contain provisions for automatic suspension of water deliveries based on drought-induced flow fluctuations. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal report of 1980 allocated fixed water shares to states and does not include any dynamic climate-adjustment coefficients or automated recalibration mechanisms based on IMD data.
Consider the following statements regarding Criteria for water allocation in the absence of bilateral treaties:
1. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 allows the Central Government to constitute a tribunal if a state government requests such action and the Centre is of the opinion that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiations.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Act of 2019 provides for a permanent tribunal with a fixed tenure of five years for the chairperson and members, replacing the ad-hoc tribunal system established in 1956.
3. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal final award, notified in 2013, allocates 419 thousand million cubic feet (tmcft) of water to Tamil Nadu out of the total available water in the basin.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, empowers the Central Government to establish a tribunal if negotiations fail to resolve a dispute. Statement 3 is correct because the 2013 final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal allocated 419 tmcft of water to Tamil Nadu. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while the 2019 Amendment Act establishes a Permanent Tribunal to resolve all inter-state disputes, it does not set a fixed tenure of five years for the chairperson and members; instead, they hold office until they attain the age of 70 years.
Consider the following statements regarding Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal and riparian state claims:
1. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act was amended in 2002 to introduce a permanent tribunal structure, replacing the ad-hoc mechanism that governed the Krishna river allocations since the 1956 enactment.
2. Under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, the decision of a tribunal, once published in the Official Gazette, carries the same legal weight as a decree of the Supreme Court of India.
3. The 1973 Bachawat Award stipulated that the allocation of water for the Krishna basin would be subject to review after the year 2000, allowing for potential modifications based on changing hydrological data.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 2002 amendment did not replace the ad-hoc mechanism with a permanent tribunal, but rather mandated a time-bound adjudication process and established a data bank. Statement 2 is correct as Section 6 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, grants the tribunal's final award the same legal force as a decree of the Supreme Court. Statement 3 is correct because the Bachawat Award (KWDT-I) allowed for a review of the water allocation scheme after May 31, 2000, which subsequently led to the constitution of the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal (KWDT-II) in 2004.
Consider the following statements regarding Legislative competence of states in water resource management:
1. Article 262(2) of the Constitution allows Parliament to provide by law that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute referred to a tribunal.
2. Entry 17 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution subjects water supplies, irrigation, and canals to the provisions of Entry 56 of the Union List.
3. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 empowers the Central Government to constitute a tribunal for the adjudication of water disputes upon receiving a request from a state government.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 262(2) empowers Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of courts in inter-state river disputes to ensure finality through tribunals. Statement 2 is correct because Entry 17 of the State List is explicitly made subject to Entry 56 of the Union List, which grants the Centre power over the regulation and development of inter-state rivers. Statement 3 is correct as the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, mandates that the Central Government must establish a tribunal if it is of the opinion that a water dispute cannot be settled by negotiations following a request from a state.
Consider the following statements regarding Inter-linking of rivers and federal implications:
1. The Ken-Betwa Link Project, which received Cabinet approval in December 2021, represents the first major project under the National Perspective Plan for the interlinking of rivers in India.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, was enacted under the authority of Article 262 to facilitate the resolution of water-sharing conflicts through the establishment of ad-hoc tribunals.
3. Article 262 of the Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication of any dispute with respect to the use, distribution, or control of the waters of any inter-State river.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Ken-Betwa Link Project is the first major project under the National Perspective Plan, approved by the Union Cabinet in December 2021 to transfer surplus water from the Ken basin to the water-deficit Betwa basin. Statement 2 is correct because the 1956 Act was enacted under Article 262 to establish ad-hoc tribunals for specific disputes, a mechanism that remains the primary legal framework for inter-state water adjudication. Statement 3 is correct as Article 262 explicitly grants Parliament the legislative power to provide for the adjudication of inter-state river water disputes and, notably, bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court in such matters.
Consider the following statements regarding Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal framework:
1. The 1975 agreement between the riparian states of the Godavari basin introduced a specific provision for the establishment of a permanent Godavari River Management Board under the administrative control of the Ministry of Power.
2. The Bachawat Commission, which submitted its final report in 1980, established the Krishna-Godavari Link Canal project as a primary mechanism for inter-basin water transfer between the two river systems.
3. The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted by the Central Government in April 1969 under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, to adjudicate the water sharing dispute between the states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Odisha.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal was indeed constituted in April 1969 under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, involving the five riparian states. Statement 1 is incorrect because there is no permanent 'Godavari River Management Board' under the Ministry of Power; the tribunal's awards are implemented by the respective state governments under the supervision of the Central Water Commission. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Bachawat Commission (Godavari Tribunal) focused on water allocation among riparian states rather than mandating a specific Krishna-Godavari Link Canal project as a primary mechanism.
Consider the following statements regarding Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 provisions:
1. The 2019 amendment to the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act replaces the multiple tribunals with a single permanent tribunal, which is headquartered in New Delhi and functions under the Ministry of Jal Shakti.
2. The 2002 amendment to the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act introduced a provision for the time-bound adjudication of disputes by the tribunal within a period of three years.
3. Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act allows the Central Government to refer a dispute to a tribunal if a state government requests mediation through the Inter-State Council established under Article 263.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because the 2002 amendment mandated that tribunals must deliver their final award within three years, extendable by a maximum of two years. Statement 1 is incorrect because while the 2019 Act provides for a permanent tribunal, it allows for the constitution of multiple benches rather than a single tribunal, and it functions under the administrative control of the Ministry of Jal Shakti. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 4 mandates that the Central Government must constitute a tribunal if it is of the opinion that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, and it does not require a prior request for mediation through the Inter-State Council.
Consider the following statements regarding Inter-state river water sharing and Seventh Schedule entries:
1. Entry 56 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution grants the Parliament the power to legislate on the regulation and development of inter-State rivers and river valleys to the extent such regulation is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.
2. Article 262 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to provide by law 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 river valley.
3. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, allows the Central Government to constitute a Tribunal for the adjudication of a water dispute if the state governments concerned fail to reach a negotiated settlement.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: Entry 56 of the Union List provides the constitutional basis for Parliament to regulate inter-state rivers, while Article 262 explicitly grants Parliament the authority to adjudicate water disputes, effectively excluding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in these matters. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, operationalizes this constitutional mandate by establishing a legal framework for the Central Government to set up ad-hoc Tribunals when state-level negotiations fail to resolve sharing conflicts.
Consider the following statements regarding Criteria for water allocation in the absence of bilateral treaties:
1. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 includes provisions for the Supreme Court to serve as the primary appellate authority for tribunal awards, a practice formalised during the 2002 amendment.
2. Article 262 of the Constitution of India empowers the Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution, or control of the waters of any inter-state river.
3. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, established in 1969, utilized the principle of equitable apportionment to allocate water among the riparian states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 262 explicitly bars the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over inter-state river water disputes, leaving the tribunal's award final and binding. Statement 2 is correct as Article 262 grants Parliament the constitutional authority to legislate on the adjudication of such disputes, leading to the enactment of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. Statement 3 is correct because the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT-I), established in 1969, applied the 'equitable apportionment' principle to distribute water among the riparian states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh based on factors like drainage area and cultivable area.
Consider the following statements regarding Impact of climate change on inter-state water sharing agreements:
1. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal final award of 2007 allocates specific monthly water volumes to riparian states, which face operational challenges during years of deficit monsoon rainfall.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 provides the legal framework for the adjudication of water sharing, though it lacks specific clauses addressing the variability of flows due to climate change.
3. Under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, the Permanent Indus Commission is tasked with data exchange, a mechanism that has become increasingly critical as glacial melt patterns alter seasonal discharge rates.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the 2007 CWDT award mandates fixed monthly releases, which become difficult to implement during climate-induced monsoon deficits. Statement 2 is correct because the 1956 Act focuses on adjudication of disputes rather than dynamic, climate-resilient water management frameworks. Statement 3 is correct as the Permanent Indus Commission facilitates essential data sharing, which is now vital for monitoring the impact of shifting Himalayan glacial melt patterns on river discharge.
Consider the following statements regarding Inter-linking of rivers and federal implications:
1. The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty includes provisions for the establishment of a Permanent Indus Commission, which serves as the final appellate body for resolving water disputes between India and Pakistan.
2. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was established in 1990 under the River Boards Act of 1956, which serves as the primary legislative framework for managing inter-state river basins.
3. The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, which delivered its final award in 1980, operates under the administrative oversight of the National River Linking Authority created by the 2002 constitutional amendment.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Permanent Indus Commission is a consultative body for information exchange, not a final appellate body for dispute resolution, which is instead handled by a Neutral Expert or Court of Arbitration. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was established under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, not the River Boards Act, 1956. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, and there is no 'National River Linking Authority' created by a 2002 constitutional amendment.
Consider the following statements regarding Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and final award implementation:
1. The 1892 agreement between the Madras Presidency and the Mysore State covers the regulation of water flow, and its provisions were incorporated into the 1956 Act by the Second Schedule.
2. The final award allocated 419 thousand million cubic feet of water to Tamil Nadu out of the total 740 thousand million cubic feet available in the Cauvery basin.
3. Article 262 of the Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication of any dispute with respect to the use, distribution, or control of the waters of any inter-state river.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the 2007 final award allocated 419 tmcft to Tamil Nadu out of the 740 tmcft total. Statement 3 is correct because Article 262 grants Parliament the constitutional authority to legislate on inter-state river water disputes, excluding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 1892 agreement was not incorporated into the 1956 Act; rather, the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 was enacted under Article 262 to provide a framework for tribunal-based adjudication.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional provisions under Article 262:
1. The 1956 Act provides for the constitution of a tribunal by the Ministry of Jal Shakti, and the final decision of such a tribunal carries the same legal weight as a decree passed by the High Court of the concerned state.
2. Under the provisions of Article 262, the President of India holds the authority to establish a permanent Inter-State Water Council that oversees the implementation of awards passed by river water tribunals.
3. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 allows the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over water-sharing grievances if the central government fails to constitute a tribunal within 90 days.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the tribunal's award has the same force as a decree of the Supreme Court, not a High Court. Statement 2 is incorrect as Article 262 empowers the Parliament to provide for the adjudication of disputes, and there is no constitutional provision for the President to establish a permanent Inter-State Water Council. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 262 expressly bars the Supreme Court and any other court from exercising jurisdiction over such disputes, and the 1956 Act does not grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in this manner.
Consider the following statements regarding Riparian rights vs. Doctrine of Equitable Apportionment:
1. Article 262 of the Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication of any dispute with respect to the use, distribution, or control of the waters of any inter-state river.
2. The Harmon Doctrine, which emphasizes the absolute sovereignty of an upstream state over river waters, was formally incorporated into the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 to govern riparian rights.
3. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was established under the River Boards Act of 1956, and its final award in 2007 established the riparian rights of Tamil Nadu based on the 1892 agreement between the Madras Presidency and Mysore.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 262 empowers Parliament to adjudicate inter-state river disputes, excluding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Harmon Doctrine is a rejected principle of absolute territorial sovereignty, whereas India follows the Doctrine of Equitable Apportionment to balance riparian interests. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was established under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, not the River Boards Act, 1956.
Consider the following statements regarding Legal status of Tribunal awards vis-a-vis Supreme Court jurisdiction:
1. The 2019 Amendment to the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act includes provisions for the Chief Justice of India to appoint the chairperson of the permanent tribunal, replacing the previous executive nomination process.
2. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, established in 1969, operates under the administrative oversight of the Ministry of Jal Shakti and maintains a direct reporting line to the High Courts of the riparian states.
3. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 was enacted following the recommendations of the 1954 Sarkaria Commission to streamline the judicial review process for riparian states.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 2019 Amendment empowers the Central Government to appoint the Chairperson and members of the Disputes Resolution Committee, not the CJI. Statement 2 is incorrect as tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established under the 1956 Act, and their awards have the same force as a decree of the Supreme Court, meaning they do not report to High Courts. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1956 Act was enacted under Article 262 of the Constitution, whereas the Sarkaria Commission was established much later in 1983 to examine Centre-State relations.
Consider the following statements regarding Mechanism for data collection and river basin management:
1. The Central Water Commission maintains the National Water Data Centre, which serves as the primary repository for hydrological data collected from various river basins across India.
2. The Cauvery Water Management Scheme, notified in 2018, provides for the establishment of the Cauvery Water Management Authority to oversee the implementation of the final order of the tribunal.
3. The Betwa River Board was constituted under the River Boards Act of 1956 to facilitate the construction of the Rajghat Dam project and coordinates water distribution between Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Central Water Commission (CWC) maintains the National Water Informatics Centre (NWIC) to serve as a comprehensive repository for hydrological data. Statement 2 is correct because the Cauvery Water Management Scheme was notified in 2018 under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's final award. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Betwa River Board was constituted under the Betwa River Board Act, 1976, not the River Boards Act of 1956, specifically to execute the Rajghat Dam project.
Consider the following statements regarding Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and final award implementation:
1. The Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018, provides for the creation of the Cauvery Water Management Authority to implement the tribunal's final award.
2. The final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was notified by the Union Government in the Gazette of India on 19 February 2013.
3. The Cauvery Water Management Authority is headquartered in Bengaluru, and its chairperson is appointed by the Ministry of Jal Shakti for a fixed tenure of five years.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018, was notified to implement the 2007 tribunal award, establishing the Authority to ensure water release compliance. Statement 2 is correct because the Union Government notified the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in the Gazette on 19 February 2013, following the Supreme Court's direction. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Cauvery Water Management Authority is headquartered in New Delhi, not Bengaluru, and the chairperson is appointed by the Central Government, but the specific tenure is not fixed at five years by the scheme.
Consider the following statements regarding Institutional role of the Inter-State Council:
1. The Punchhi Commission report of 2010 suggested that the Inter-State Council should be granted the power to issue binding arbitral awards on river water disputes between riparian states.
2. The Inter-State Council includes the Union Home Minister as its permanent chairperson, and it holds its meetings in New Delhi under the administrative control of the Ministry of Jal Shakti.
3. The 1956 Act provides for the establishment of a permanent Inter-State River Basin Authority, which functions as a subordinate office of the Inter-State Council to monitor water sharing.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Punchhi Commission recommended that the Inter-State Council should have a more active role in facilitating dialogue, but it did not suggest granting it powers to issue binding arbitral awards, which remains the domain of specialized Tribunals under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Prime Minister is the permanent Chairperson of the Inter-State Council, and it functions under the administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the Ministry of Jal Shakti. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1956 Act does not provide for a permanent Inter-State River Basin Authority subordinate to the Inter-State Council; instead, it empowers the Central Government to establish ad-hoc Tribunals for specific disputes.
Consider the following statements regarding Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 provisions:
1. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, was enacted by Parliament under the authority of Article 262 of the Indian Constitution.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 follows the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission, which proposed the establishment of a permanent inter-state council for water allocation.
3. The 1956 Act provides for the appointment of a tribunal chairman by the Chief Justice of India, and the tribunal holds the power to modify existing inter-state water treaties signed before 1947.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 262 empowers Parliament to provide for the adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-state rivers. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 1956 Act predates the Sarkaria Commission (1983) by decades and the commission actually recommended a permanent tribunal mechanism rather than an inter-state council for water. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Chief Justice of India nominates the tribunal head, the Act does not grant tribunals the authority to unilaterally modify or override existing water-sharing agreements or treaties signed before 1947.
Consider the following statements regarding Legal status of Tribunal awards vis-a-vis Supreme Court jurisdiction:
1. Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to a tribunal under the Act.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 provides that a tribunal award, once published in the Official Gazette, has the same force as a decree of the Supreme Court.
3. Article 262 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution, or control of the waters of any inter-state river.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 11 of the 1956 Act explicitly bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court over disputes referred to a tribunal. Statement 2 is correct because, under the Act, a tribunal's decision is final and binding on the parties, carrying the same legal weight as a decree of the Supreme Court once notified in the Official Gazette. Statement 3 is correct as Article 262 provides the constitutional basis for Parliament to enact laws for the adjudication of inter-state water disputes, effectively excluding the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131.
Consider the following statements regarding Mechanism for data collection and river basin management:
1. The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal was established under the 1956 Act and its 1980 final award includes provisions for the creation of a joint river basin authority to manage the flow of the Indravati sub-basin.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Act of 2019 provides for a permanent tribunal to resolve water disputes and incorporates a Dispute Resolution Committee to settle issues within a six-month timeframe.
3. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 empowers the Central Government to constitute a tribunal for the adjudication of water disputes when a request is received from a State Government.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as Section 4 of the 1956 Act mandates the Central Government to constitute a tribunal upon receiving a request from a state government if negotiations fail. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (1980) did not mandate a joint river basin authority for the Indravati sub-basin. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the 2019 Amendment introduces a permanent tribunal and a Dispute Resolution Committee, the committee is mandated to resolve disputes within a period of one year, extendable by six months, rather than a strict six-month timeframe.
Consider the following statements regarding Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal and riparian state claims:
1. The Brijesh Kumar Tribunal was established in 2004 to address the grievances of the riparian states following the reorganization of Andhra Pradesh into the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
2. The Bachawat Award, delivered in 1973, allocated the Krishna river water among the three riparian states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh based on a 75 percent dependability criterion.
3. The first Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted by the Central Government in April 1969 under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
The first Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT-I) was indeed constituted in 1969 under the 1956 Act, and its 1973 Bachawat Award allocated water among Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh based on 75% dependability. The Brijesh Kumar Tribunal (KWDT-II), established in 2004, was later tasked with re-adjudicating water shares specifically to accommodate the needs of Telangana following the 2014 state reorganization. All three statements are factually accurate as they correctly identify the legal origins, the foundational allocation criteria, and the subsequent mandate of the tribunals.
Consider the following statements regarding Composition and tenure of Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunals:
1. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Act of 2019 introduced the provision for a permanent tribunal to replace the ad-hoc system that previously characterized dispute resolution.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 empowers the Central Government to constitute a tribunal for the adjudication of water disputes when a state government requests such action.
3. A tribunal under the 1956 Act consists of a Chairman and two other members, all of whom are nominated by the Chief Justice of India from among judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the 2019 Amendment Act mandates a permanent tribunal with a permanent establishment to replace the previous ad-hoc tribunals. Statement 2 is correct because the 1956 Act empowers the Central Government to constitute a tribunal if it is of the opinion that a water dispute cannot be settled by negotiations. Statement 3 is correct as the composition requires a Chairman and two other members nominated by the Chief Justice of India from among judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts, ensuring judicial independence in the adjudication process.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Central Water Commission in dispute resolution:
1. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal was established in 1969 under the River Boards Act, 1956, and its final award was notified by the Central Government in 1976.
2. The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal submitted its report in 1979, and the Central Water Commission serves as the primary appellate authority for reviewing the technical findings of such tribunals.
3. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted in 1990, and its proceedings are governed by the 1924 agreement between the Madras Presidency and the Princely State of Mysore.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because water disputes tribunals are established under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, not the River Boards Act, 1956. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Supreme Court of India holds exclusive jurisdiction over tribunal awards under Article 262, and the Central Water Commission has no appellate authority over these judicial bodies. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Cauvery Tribunal was constituted in 1990, its proceedings were not governed by the 1924 agreement; rather, the tribunal was tasked with adjudicating the dispute precisely because the 1924 agreement was deemed inadequate and contentious by the riparian states.
Consider the following statements regarding Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal framework:
1. The final adjudication of the Godavari river water sharing was based on the 1976 interstate agreement, which prioritized the water requirements of the Polavaram project over the existing upstream utilization rights of Madhya Pradesh.
2. The award delivered by the Tribunal in 1980 provided for the creation of a joint committee comprising representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture to oversee the irrigation efficiency standards in the Godavari delta region.
3. The 1969 notification for the constitution of the Godavari Tribunal specified that the presiding judge would be appointed in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Courts of the involved riparian states.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 1976 agreement protected existing upstream utilization rights of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, rather than prioritizing Polavaram over them. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Tribunal's 1980 award established the Godavari River Board for monitoring, not a committee under the Ministry of Agriculture. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, the presiding judge of a tribunal is appointed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, not the High Courts of riparian states.
Consider the following statements regarding Establishment of the Permanent Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal:
1. Article 262 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution, or control of the waters of any inter-state river.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2019, provides for the establishment of a single Permanent Tribunal to adjudicate all inter-state river water disputes in India.
3. Under the 2019 Act, the Permanent Tribunal consists of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson, and three judicial members and three expert members nominated by the Chief Justice of India and the Union Government.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 262 empowers Parliament to adjudicate inter-state river water disputes, excluding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court. Statement 2 is correct because the 2019 Amendment Act replaced the ad-hoc tribunal system with a single Permanent Tribunal to streamline the resolution process. Statement 3 is correct as the Act mandates a composition of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson, and three judicial and three expert members, all appointed by the Central Government based on recommendations from a selection committee.
Consider the following statements regarding Institutional role of the Inter-State Council:
1. The Sarkaria Commission, established in 1983, recommended the creation of a permanent Inter-State Council to serve as an independent national forum for consultation.
2. Article 263 of the Constitution empowers the President to establish the Inter-State Council to investigate and discuss subjects in which some or all of the States have a common interest.
3. The Inter-State Council Secretariat is located within the NITI Aayog, and it maintains the records of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal proceedings since its inception in 1990.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Sarkaria Commission (1983) recommended the Inter-State Council to promote Centre-State cooperation, leading to its establishment in 1990. Statement 2 is correct because Article 263 grants the President the authority to create such a body to adjudicate or discuss matters of common interest between states. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Inter-State Council Secretariat functions under the Ministry of Home Affairs, not NITI Aayog, and it does not maintain records of specific water dispute tribunals, which are handled by their respective independent authorities.
Consider the following statements regarding Legislative competence of states in water resource management:
1. The Sarkaria Commission report of 1988 suggested that the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act be amended to include a mandatory time-bound mediation process, which was incorporated into the statute in 1992.
2. The River Boards Act of 1956 enables the establishment of advisory boards for inter-state rivers, and the first such board was constituted for the Godavari basin in 1962.
3. The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty includes provisions for the management of the Ravi and Beas rivers, and the Permanent Indus Commission meets annually to review technical data for these specific tributaries.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Sarkaria Commission did not recommend a mandatory mediation process in 1988 that was enacted in 1992; the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act was significantly amended in 2002 and 2019, not 1992. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the River Boards Act was passed in 1956, no River Board has ever been constituted under this Act to date. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Indus Waters Treaty exclusively governs the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab (Western Rivers) and the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej (Eastern Rivers), but the Permanent Indus Commission is tasked with the implementation of the treaty provisions and does not specifically focus on the Ravi and Beas in the manner described.
Consider the following statements regarding Establishment of the Permanent Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal:
1. The 2019 Amendment introduces a mandatory mediation process through a panel of experts, and the decision reached during this mediation phase is legally enforceable as a decree of the High Court having jurisdiction over the basin.
2. The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, established in 1969, operates under the administrative oversight of the Central Water Commission, which holds the power to appoint its presiding officer under the 2019 legislative framework.
3. Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act provides that the Chairperson of the Permanent Tribunal is appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Inter-State Council established under Article 263.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because mediation is voluntary, not mandatory, and the settlement reached is not a decree of the High Court but is treated as a decision of the Tribunal. Statement 2 is incorrect as the 2019 Act replaced ad-hoc tribunals with a single Permanent Tribunal, and the Chairperson is appointed by the Central Government, not the Central Water Commission. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Chairperson of the Permanent Tribunal is appointed by the Central Government upon the recommendation of a Selection Committee, not by the President in consultation with the Inter-State Council.
Consider the following statements regarding Criteria for water allocation in the absence of bilateral treaties:
1. The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, constituted in 1969, encompasses a framework where the riparian states are permitted to divert surplus water to non-basin states based on the 1975 Helsinki Rules.
2. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal II, headed by Justice Brijesh Kumar, allows for the automatic revision of water allocation shares every ten years based on the decadal rainfall data recorded by the India Meteorological Department.
3. The Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal, set up under the 1986 agreement, refers to the 1981 tripartite settlement between Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan as the basis for calculating the total availability of 17.17 million acre-feet.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (1969) did not incorporate the Helsinki Rules, which are non-binding international guidelines rather than statutory mandates for Indian tribunals. Statement 2 is incorrect as there is no provision for the automatic decadal revision of water shares based on IMD data in the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal II; allocations are fixed by the tribunal's final award subject to judicial review. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1981 tripartite agreement is a subject of intense legal dispute and has not been finalized as the definitive basis for the Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal, which remains mired in litigation regarding the actual availability of water.
Consider the following statements regarding Riparian rights vs. Doctrine of Equitable Apportionment:
1. The riparian rights doctrine is defined in the Indian Easements Act of 1882, and this legislation provides the legal framework for resolving conflicts between states regarding the construction of hydroelectric projects on inter-state rivers.
2. The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal award of 1979 provided for the height of the Sardar Sarovar Dam, and this specific technical parameter was determined by the Inter-State Council established under Article 263 of the Constitution.
3. The Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, brokered by the World Bank, allocates the waters of the three eastern rivers-Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej-to India for unrestricted use.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty grants India exclusive rights to the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej). Statement 1 is incorrect because the Indian Easements Act, 1882, governs private property rights, whereas inter-state river disputes are adjudicated under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, pursuant to Article 262. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted under the 1956 Act, and the dam's height was determined by the Tribunal's judicial award, not by the Inter-State Council, which is a constitutional body for coordination under Article 263.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional provisions under Article 262:
1. The River Boards Act of 1956 provides for the establishment of boards to advise the central government on the development of inter-state rivers, and these boards possess the legal power to enforce water-sharing quotas.
2. Article 262 is associated with the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which places the regulation and development of inter-state rivers under the Concurrent List to ensure uniform national water management.
3. Constitutional provisions under Article 262 allow the Governor of a state to initiate a formal dispute resolution process by submitting a petition directly to the Inter-State Council established under Article 263.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the River Boards Act, 1956, only empowers boards to advise the central government, not to enforce water-sharing quotas. Statement 2 is incorrect as water is a State Subject (Entry 17, List II), and Article 262 empowers Parliament to adjudicate inter-state river disputes, overriding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 262 authorizes Parliament to enact laws for dispute adjudication, and the Inter-State Council (Article 263) is a separate body for coordination, not a tribunal for mandatory river water dispute resolution.
Consider the following statements regarding Composition and tenure of Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunals:
1. The term of office for the Chairman and members of the tribunal is determined by the Central Government at the time of their appointment, subject to a maximum age limit of 70 years.
2. The 1956 Act provides that the tribunal shall consist of persons who are or have been judges of the Supreme Court or judges of a High Court at the time of their nomination.
3. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 allows for the appointment of technical experts as presiding officers of the tribunal, provided they have served at least fifteen years in the Central Water Commission.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as per the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2019, which mandates that the Chairman and members hold office until they attain the age of 70 years. Statement 2 is correct because the 1956 Act requires the tribunal to be composed of a Chairman and two other members nominated by the Chief Justice of India from among persons who are or have been judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Act does not allow technical experts to serve as presiding officers; while the 2019 Amendment introduced a 'Dispute Resolution Committee' to include technical experts, the tribunal itself remains strictly judicial in its composition.
Consider the following statements regarding Impact of climate change on inter-state water sharing agreements:
1. The Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal award of 1986 provides for a permanent revision of water shares every ten years to account for the impact of rising temperatures on the Himalayan snowmelt.
2. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, in its 1973 report, established a system of water allocation based on 75 percent dependability, a metric that remains sensitive to shifting precipitation trends in the Western Ghats.
3. The 2002 National Water Policy incorporates a binding clause that permits states to unilaterally revise their inter-state water allocation quotas if the annual discharge of the river basin declines by more than 15 percent.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT-I) utilized 75% dependability as a standard hydrological metric to ensure equitable distribution, though it lacks mechanisms to automatically adjust for climate-induced precipitation volatility. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Ravi-Beas Tribunal award is based on fixed volumetric allocations determined by historical flow data and does not contain provisions for decadal climate-based revisions. Statement 3 is incorrect because the National Water Policy (2002) serves as a set of guidelines rather than a binding legal instrument, and it does not grant states the authority to unilaterally alter inter-state water quotas.
Consider the following statements regarding Institutional role of the Inter-State Council:
1. The Inter-State Council was formally constituted in 1990 through a Presidential Order, following the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission report.
2. Article 262 of the Constitution provides for the creation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee to adjudicate river water disputes, which functions in coordination with the Inter-State Council.
3. Under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956, the Central Government can refer a dispute to a Tribunal if it is of the opinion that the matter cannot be settled by negotiations.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Inter-State Council was established in 1990 under Article 263 by a Presidential Order based on the Sarkaria Commission's recommendation. Statement 3 is correct because the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, empowers the Central Government to constitute a Tribunal if negotiations between states fail to resolve a water dispute. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 262 empowers Parliament to provide for the adjudication of inter-state river disputes through special Tribunals, not a Joint Parliamentary Committee, and the Inter-State Council's mandate under Article 263 is distinct from the judicial mechanisms established under Article 262.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Central Water Commission in dispute resolution:
1. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2019, introduces a Dispute Resolution Committee to facilitate an amicable settlement of disputes before the matter is referred to a permanent tribunal.
2. Article 262 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution, or control of the waters of any inter-state river.
3. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, provides for the creation of a National Water Tribunal to handle all river disputes, and its chairperson is appointed by the Chief Justice of India.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the 2019 Amendment Act mandates a Dispute Resolution Committee to resolve disputes through negotiation before approaching the tribunal. Statement 2 is correct because Article 262 grants Parliament the exclusive power to legislate on inter-state river water disputes, excluding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1956 Act does not create a single National Water Tribunal; instead, it provides for the constitution of ad-hoc tribunals for each specific dispute, and their chairpersons are nominated by the Chief Justice of India upon a request from the Central Government, not appointed directly by the CJI.
Consider the following statements regarding Mechanism for data collection and river basin management:
1. Under the River Boards Act of 1956, the Central Government is authorized to establish a Board for interstate rivers or river valleys upon a formal request from the concerned State Governments.
2. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, constituted in 1969, delivered its final report in 1973, which was subsequently published in the Official Gazette to become binding on the riparian states.
3. The National Water Policy of 2012 suggests the formation of River Basin Organizations for the management of the Brahmaputra and Ganga systems, which are currently governed by the 1972 Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the River Boards Act, 1956 empowers the Central Government to establish Boards upon request from State Governments to advise on inter-state river development. Statement 2 is correct because the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, established under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, issued its final award in 1973, which attained the status of a decree of the Supreme Court upon publication. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the National Water Policy advocates for River Basin Organizations, the Brahmaputra and Ganga systems are not governed by the Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission, which is a bilateral consultative body for flood management and data sharing rather than a basin management authority.
Consider the following statements regarding Inter-state river water sharing and Seventh Schedule entries:
1. Article 263 of the Constitution relates to the establishment of the Inter-State Council, which serves as the primary judicial body for resolving water sharing conflicts between states when the Supreme Court declines jurisdiction.
2. The River Boards Act of 1956 enables the Central Government to establish boards for inter-state rivers, and these boards possess the legal capacity to issue binding judicial decrees on riparian states regarding water allocation.
3. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, established in 1969, operates under the administrative supervision of the Ministry of Jal Shakti, which holds the authority to modify tribunal awards based on state-level petitions.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 262, not 263, empowers Parliament to adjudicate inter-state river disputes, and Article 262(2) explicitly bars the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, making tribunals the primary mechanism. Statement 2 is incorrect as the River Boards Act, 1956, only allows boards to advise state governments on development, lacking the authority to issue binding judicial decrees on water allocation. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, tribunal awards have the same force as a Supreme Court decree, and the Ministry of Jal Shakti has no legal authority to modify these awards once they are notified in the Official Gazette.
Consider the following statements regarding Parliamentary power to adjudicate inter-state water disputes:
1. The 2002 amendment to the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act introduced a provision for the decision of the tribunal to have the same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court.
2. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act was enacted by the Parliament in 1956 to facilitate the resolution of water-sharing conflicts through the establishment of ad hoc tribunals.
3. Under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, the central government is empowered to constitute a tribunal when a state government requests such action and the government is of the opinion that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiations.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: the 2002 amendment mandated that tribunal awards have the same legal force as a Supreme Court decree; the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, was enacted under Article 262 to provide for ad hoc tribunals; and the Central Government is statutorily empowered to constitute a tribunal if negotiations fail following a request from a state government.
Consider the following statements regarding Composition and tenure of Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunals:
1. The 2019 Amendment Act establishes a single permanent tribunal with a fixed tenure of five years for its members, who are appointed by a selection committee chaired by the Union Minister of Water Resources.
2. The decision of the tribunal, once published by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, has the same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court.
3. Under the 2019 amendment, the Dispute Resolution Committee is tasked with attempting an amicable settlement within a period of one year, extendable by six months.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because while the 2019 Act establishes a permanent tribunal, the Chairperson and members hold office until they attain the age of 70 years, not a fixed five-year tenure. Statement 2 is correct as the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2019, mandates that the tribunal's decision, once notified in the Official Gazette, holds the same legal finality and force as a Supreme Court decree. Statement 3 is correct because the Act mandates the formation of a Dispute Resolution Committee to resolve disputes through negotiations within one year, which can be extended by a maximum of six months.
Consider the following statements regarding Inter-linking of rivers and federal implications:
1. Under the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Act of 2019, the central government is empowered to set up a permanent Disputes Resolution Committee to resolve water conflicts through negotiations before referring them to a tribunal.
2. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, constituted in 1969, remains one of the longest-running mechanisms for adjudicating water-sharing claims among the states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Telangana.
3. The National Water Development Agency was established in 1982 as an autonomous society to carry out detailed surveys and investigations for the proposed inter-basin water transfer links.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the 2019 Amendment Act mandates a permanent Disputes Resolution Committee to facilitate amicable settlements before tribunal adjudication. Statement 2 is correct because the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, established in 1969, continues to address complex water-sharing claims involving Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Telangana. Statement 3 is correct as the National Water Development Agency was indeed set up in 1982 under the Societies Registration Act to conduct feasibility studies for inter-basin water transfer links.
Consider the following statements regarding Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal framework:
1. The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal report includes a detailed framework for the equitable distribution of hydroelectric potential, which was subsequently integrated into the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation's operational guidelines in 1985.
2. The Tribunal's 1979 award permitted the state of Maharashtra to utilize a specific volume of water from the upper Godavari sub-basin, subject to the ratification of the riparian rights by the Supreme Court of India.
3. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act was amended in 2002 to include a sunset clause for the Godavari Tribunal, effectively transferring its ongoing monitoring functions to the Central Water Commission.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
All three statements are incorrect because the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT), constituted in 1969, focused on the allocation of water for irrigation and consumptive use rather than hydroelectric potential, and its 1979 award is final and binding under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, without requiring Supreme Court ratification. Furthermore, the 2002 amendment to the Act did not introduce a sunset clause for the GWDT; instead, the Tribunal ceased to exist upon the publication of its final report in the Official Gazette in 1980, and its monitoring functions were not transferred to the Central Water Commission in the manner described.
Consider the following statements regarding Exclusion of Supreme Court jurisdiction under Article 262(2):
1. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted on 2 June 1990 to adjudicate the water-sharing dispute between the states of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and the Union Territory of Puducherry.
2. Under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, the decision of a Tribunal, once published in the Official Gazette by the Central Government, has the same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court.
3. The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, constituted in 1969, submitted its final report and decision in 1980, which was subsequently published in the Gazette of India.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was indeed established on 2 June 1990 to resolve the long-standing water-sharing conflict among the specified riparian states and UT. Statement 2 is correct because Section 6 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, mandates that a Tribunal's decision, once notified in the Official Gazette, holds the same legal finality and binding force as a decree of the Supreme Court. Statement 3 is correct because the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, set up in 1969, concluded its proceedings with a final report in 1980, which was subsequently gazetted to become legally enforceable.