Under Article 262 of the Indian Constitution, which of the following interpretations most accurately reflects Parliament’s authority regarding inter-State water disputes?
- (a)Legislate on river navigation but not bar SC jurisdiction
- (b)Set up tribunals for water disputes and bar SC review
- (c)Abolish State-level water bodies permanently
- (d)Mandate ISC mediation before court action
Answer
Why
Correct — B. Article 262(1) lets Parliament by law provide for the adjudication of disputes over the waters of any inter-State river or river valley.
Article 262(2) adds that Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction over such a dispute.
Parliament used both powers in the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, which provides for tribunals and keeps the courts out. That is option (b).
Why the others are wrong
- (a)Legislate on river navigation but not bar SC jurisdiction — Article 262 is about adjudicating water disputes, not navigation. And its clause (2) does exactly what this option denies: it lets Parliament bar the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
- (c)Abolish State-level water bodies permanently — Nothing in Article 262 touches State water bodies. Water stays a State subject under State List entry 17, subject to Union List entry 56 on inter-State rivers.
- (d)Mandate ISC mediation before court action — The Inter-State Council comes from Article 263, not 262, and it only inquires and advises. Nothing makes its mediation a step before going to court.
Concept
Water is a State subject, so a river that crosses State borders can breed a dispute no single State can settle.
Article 262 keeps such disputes out of ordinary litigation: Parliament may create separate machinery to decide them and shut the courts out of it.
The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 is that machinery. On a State's request, the Centre refers a dispute it cannot settle by negotiation to a tribunal, whose award binds the parties.
The key follows the textbook line: Article 262(2) and the 1956 Act exclude the courts from the dispute itself.
The courts have read that bar narrowly. In the Cauvery case the Supreme Court held in December 2016 that it can still hear appeals against a tribunal's final award under Article 136, and it modified the allocation in 2018.
Key facts
- Article 262(1): Parliament may by law provide for adjudication of disputes over the waters of inter-State rivers and river valleys.
- Article 262(2): Parliament may by law bar the Supreme Court and every other court from such disputes.
- The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 was made under Article 262 and provides for water disputes tribunals.
- Article 263 lets the President establish an Inter-State Council to inquire into and advise upon disputes between States.
Study next
Common traps
- Assuming the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 131 covers inter-State water disputes, when Article 262(2) lets Parliament exclude them.
- Mixing up Article 262, on water disputes, with Article 263, on the Inter-State Council.
Article 262 is asked as two statements at 17 Sep 2025, 12:30, GA Q.25, where the key accepts the tribunal power and rejects Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction.
Inter-State water disputes are a wrong option for Article 131 at 16 Sep 2025, 12:30, GA Q.15.
Related PYQs
No directly related past PYQ was found.