Article 262 of the Constitution provides for the adjudication of inter...
-
The Inter-State Water Disputes Act empowers the Central government to set up an ad hoc tribunal to adjudicate a dispute between two or more states about an inter-state river or river valley's waters. The decision of the tribunal would be final and binding on the parties to the dispute.
-
Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court is to have jurisdiction regarding any water dispute that may be referred to such a tribunal under this Act.
-
The need for extra judicial machinery to settle inter-state water disputes is as follows: The Supreme Court would indeed have jurisdiction to decide any dispute between slates in connection with water supplies if legal rights or interests are concerned, but the experience of most countries has shown that rules of law based upon the analogy of private proprietary interests in water do not afford a satisfactory basis for settling disputes between the states where the interests of the public at large in the proper use of water supplies are involved.
Article 262 of the Constitution provides for the adjudication of inter...
Explanation:
The correct answer is option 'B', which states that water resources are not private property, and therefore the rule of law applied by ordinary courts is not appropriate to deal with its distribution.
Reasoning:
There are several reasons why the adjudication of inter-state water disputes requires a separate tribunal and the application of different rules compared to ordinary courts:
1. Nature of water resources:
Water resources, such as rivers, lakes, and groundwater, are not private property but are considered as public or common resources. Therefore, the distribution and allocation of these resources cannot be governed by the same rules that apply to private property. The distribution of water resources requires a more comprehensive and specialized approach.
2. Complexity of water disputes:
Water disputes between states are often complex and involve various technical, scientific, and legal aspects. These disputes require the consideration of factors such as river basin management, water availability, ecological impact, and the needs of different states. Ordinary courts may not have the necessary expertise or technical knowledge to effectively adjudicate on these matters.
3. Need for specialized expertise:
The adjudication of inter-state water disputes involves the understanding of hydrological, economic, and ecological aspects. A separate tribunal can be constituted with members who have specific knowledge and expertise in these fields. This allows for a more informed and comprehensive decision-making process.
4. Expedited resolution:
Water disputes can have significant socio-economic implications and can impact the livelihoods and development of the states involved. Having a separate tribunal helps expedite the resolution of these disputes, as the tribunal can focus solely on water-related issues and avoid the delays often associated with the regular court system.
Conclusion:
Given the unique nature of water resources and the complexities involved in inter-state water disputes, it is essential to have a separate tribunal and a different set of rules to ensure a fair and efficient resolution. This approach recognizes the public nature of water resources and the need for specialized expertise in dealing with these disputes.
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed UPSC study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in UPSC.