After the disappointing record of river water tribunals in resolving water sharing disputes among many states, the proposal to set up a single permanent tribunal for all disputes marks a change. The Union Cabinet has decided to amend the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, to enable the setting of a permanent tribunal and to make some other provisions which are intended to facilitate quicker settlement of disputes. The idea of a single permanent tribunal is part of the National Water Policy of 2012. The present practice is to constitute a tribunal when a specific dispute arises. These ad hoc bodies take a long time to reach a solution, going through interim awards and then giving the final award. The Cauvery Tribunal was set up in 1990 but gave its final award in 2007. It was notified in 2013. As conceived now, the permanent tribunal will have benches for different disputes. The benches will be dissolved after resolution of a particular dispute.
While the proposal may be well intended, there are doubts whether it will be as effective as expected. The tribunal will have a single chairman who is to be a former Supreme Court judge and has to give its award within three years after a dispute is referred to it. It will have a very busy time dealing with the many disputes all over the country, and might find its time too stretched. Its proceedings, interim decisions and final decision may be challenged in the Supreme Court. There is a proposal to set up a dispute resolution committee, too, which will try to resolve a dispute before it is referred to the tribunal. It will be an expert body and may be of use in the resolution of certain kinds of disputes. But most disputes may not end at that level.
Another important proposal is to create an agency which will collect data on rainfall, irrigation and the flow of water between basins and regions. Some disputes remain unresolved or get aggravated because of the absence of such data. The information will be valuable not only for settlement of disputes but also for formulating plans for water use and their implementation. While the new proposals and approaches to dispute resolution may be tried, it should be noted that most disputes remain unresolved because the solutions are not acceptable to the states. Politics and populism play a role in this. This is the situation even when the awards are binding on the disputing states. Unfortunately, some solutions have been found to be flawed, too. It is not known how a permanent tribunal will make a difference to the situation.