Abstract:
Water Dispute Tribunals refer to the Equitable Apportionment theory for apportioning the waters of an interstate river among the basin States. They are guided by Helsinki Rules 1966 which have stipulated certain guidelines and factors. But those Rules are not very definite or clear as how a specific case has to be resolved. Many countries including India have not accepted the Equitable Apportionment theory. The real issue is always between the protection of existing uses and allocation for future uses. The upper riparian States tend to dilute the existing beneficial uses under the pretext of equity which is dangerous to an agrarian country like India. It will go against the policy of the Nation, namely, self-sufficiency in food grain requirement. Therefore, India has to evolve a policy for solving its river water disputes without depending on the policies evolved elsewhere.
In India Tribunals are constituted under the ISWD Act, 1956 with the objective that a special Tribunal would be able to adjudicate early. On the contrary, they take a very long time. There are delays at every stage. The procedures adopted by the Tribunals are also not uniform. In most of the earlier Tribunals in India no witnesses were produced by the disputing party States. But in Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal 20 witnesses were engaged by the party States and cross examining them took many years. It is suggested that the procedures adopted by the Tribunal have to be studied and modified so that the disputes could be adjudicated as early as possible and implemented.
