Water in Concurrent List

Why in news?

The Centre recently held discussions with states on the issue of bringing water into the Concurrent List of the Constitution.

What is the current situation?

• India water is a State subject, but the provisions are quite complicated.
• The primary entry in the Constitution relating to water Entry 17 in the State List.
• It brings water including water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power under state list.
• But it also enables the Union to deal with Inter-State rivers if Parliament legislates in public interest,  via Entry 56 in the Union List.
• This provision has not been used by Parliament.
• Under Entry 56, Parliament enact the River Boards Act 1956 to the establish River Boards for inter-State rivers.
• But no such board has been established under the Act.
• It is because of the strong resistance by State governments to any enhancement of the role of the Central government.
• Therefore each riparian state has an unrestrained hold over the portion of the river that runs through its territory.
• The Centre cannot intervene unless asked by the contending parties or directed by the judiciary to do so.

What will happen due to the change?

• If a subject is added to the concurrent list, both the state and the centre can make laws on that subject.
• In case of conflict between the central and state law on the subject, the central law prevails.
• But if the state law is reserved for the consideration of the President and he gave his accent, then the state law will prevail in that state.

What is the need?

• Principle - The current provision disregards the principle of equitable sharing of common property.
• Countless inter-state water disputes of the present days are due to this.
• Resource depletion - The extravagant and wasteful usage of river water one state deprives other states to meet even their essential needs.
• Same is the case of over-exploitation of ground water at one spot can have detrimental effects in neighbouring areas.
• Non Compliance - The states most often reject pleas by the Centre or awards of tribunals appointed by it to arbitrate on these matters.
• The court judgments also remain unimplemented. e.g Verdict on Cauvery waters and Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal.
• Constitutional Error - Moreover, the Constitution-makers could not have anticipated the water scarcity and crisis of present times. Neither they could have a foreseen the climate change and its impact on water resources.

What should be done?

• In 2011 Ashok Chawla Committee underscored the need for a comprehensive national legislation on water either by bringing water in the Concurrent List or through a legal framework for treating water as a unified common resource.
• The parliamentary standing committee on water resources and Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee also have favoured the shift.
• The states should co-operate with centre on this.
• If the states refuse, the Centre should explore other options effectively using Entry 56 in the Union List.
• But at the same time enough safeguards should be taken to avoid centralisation which deprives states of their rights.

Category: Mains | GS-II | Polity

Source: The Hindu