1. CENTRE STATE RELATIONS Flashcards
1.1. INTERSTATE WATER
- 1.1. Single Tribunal for Inter-State Water Dispute
- 1.2. Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal II Verdict
- 1.3. Cauvery Water Issue
- 1.4. Special Committee for Inter-Linking of Rivers
- 1.5. Ken-betwa river project
- 1.6. Odisha Rejects Panel on Mahanadi River Dispute
1.1.1. SINGLE TRIBUNAL FOR INTER-STATE WATER DISPUTE
Why in news?
The Central Government has decided to amend
Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (ISWDA) to
constitute a permanent tribunal to decide on all
inter-state water disputes that arise.
An agency, to collect and maintain all relevant
water data, like rainfall, water flow and irrigation
area, in each of the river basins of the country, is
also proposed to be created.
Background
Centre currently sets up ad hoc tribunals under ISWDA to adjudicate
disputes as they arise. Eight tribunals have been constituted so far.
With water becoming scarce resource, inter-state water disputes are
increasing.
Constitutional Provisions
Article 262(1) of the Constitution lays down that “Parliament may by
law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with
respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any
inter-State river, or river valley”. Parliament has enacted the Inter-
State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
Interstate water dispute Act, 1956:
Salient Features
Constitution of the tribunal
The Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court,
Power to make schemes for implementing decisions of tribunal,
Dissolution of Tribunal and power to make rules.
Adjudication of water disputes,
Maintenance of data bank and information,
Bar of jurisdiction of Supreme Court and other Courts.
–Fig–
1.1.2. KRISHNA WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL II VERDICT
Why in news?
The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal II headed by Justice Brijesh Kumar has turned down the demands of AP
and Telangana regarding their demand for redistribution of the Krishna river water among the four riparian
states, including Karnataka and Maharashtra.
Background
The KWDT I (Bachawat commission) in its final award in 1973, divided the share of water between the three
states as Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in their current petition have sought fresh allocation of Krishna River water
among all four riparian states.
According to them, Section 89 in the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 calls for redistribution of
Krishna water among all the four riparian States not just between both of them.
The judgment
The tribunal observed that the section 89 of AP reorganisation act 2014 was not applicable to Maharashtra and Karnataka.
Allocations made on the basis of water utilisations outside the Krishna basin were valid on historic grounds.
AP and Telangana have to share water that was allocated to the undivided AP.
1.1.3. CAUVERY WATER ISSUE
Why in news?
On September 5, the Supreme Court ordered the Karnataka government to release 15,000 cusecs of water a day for 10 days, to Tamil Nadu. This led to widespread protests and bandhs in Karnataka.
The Karnataka government’s stand was water could not be released due to drought conditions in South Karnataka.
Background
As per 1924-agreement, Cauvery river water is distributed as 75% with Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, 23% to Karnataka and remaining to go to Kerala.
In 1974, Karnataka (Mysore) asserted that the 1924
agreement entailed a discontinuation of the water supply to Tamil Nadu (Madras) after 50 years.
Karnataka demanded that the river water should be divided according to international rules, i.e., in equal portions.
Cauvery waters tribunal
Owing to Tamil Nadu government’s appeal to the Central government in 1986 to constitute a tribunal for
solving the issue under Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, the Cauvery Waters Tribunal was established
on June, 2, 1990.
In 2007, after sixteen years of hearing and an interim order later, the Tribunal announced its final order.
It concluded that the water availability in Cauvery stood at 740 tmcft.
box–Geography
Tribunal award has been criticized for
ignoring the fact that ground water in the
river basin is more in lower riparian state and
less in the upper riparian state while
assessing water availability.
Deficiency in monsoon rainfall and less
water due to El Nino and 2yr drought is the
main reason. Karnataka had 18 percent short
of normal rainfall.
Inefficient use of land: Karnataka is
cultivating large-scale water-intense crops
such as sugar cane, despite their soil’s dryland-
farming qualities.
Geographic location of Tamil Nadu: Tamil
Nadu is present on the leeward side of
Western Ghats for SW monsoon and receive
majority of its rainfall via N-E Monsoon
1.1.4. SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR INTER-LINKING OF RIVERS
Union Cabinet has given its approval to the Status-cum-Progress Report and constitution of “Special
Committee for Inter-Linking of Rivers” in compliance of Supreme Court judgment.
In February 2012, the Supreme Court allowed interlinking of rivers with the condition that Special committee
should be established for timely completion of feasibility reports and projects.
It will be chaired by Union Minister for Water Resource, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation. The
Director General of National Water Development Agency is the Member Secretary of the Committee.
1.1.5. KEN-BETWA RIVER PROJECT
The Ken-Betwa river linking project aims to irrigate the drought-ravaged Bundelkhand region.
It involves building a 288-metre Daudhan dam, and transfer of surplus water from the Ken river basin to the
Betwa basin.
This will submerge nearly 400 of the 4,300 hectares of the Panna tiger reserve.
Experts suggest that the result could be drastic for the tiger population, as they have to adjust to the
changes.
Impact area will be far greater with associated activities related to construction, power houses etc.
1.1.6. ODISHA REJECTS PANEL ON MAHANADI RIVER DISPUTE
Why in news?
Odisha government has rejected the Centre’s negotiation committee on Mahanadi river water dispute with
Chhattisgarh and instead demanded constitution of a Tribunal for adjudication.
River dispute
The 858 km long Mahanadi River is almost equally divided between Chhattisgarh (53.9 per cent) and Odisha
(45.73 per cent).
River Mahanadi, with Hirakud dam on it, is lifeline of Odisha state and critical for development of the region
Dispute is majorly about six water storage structures/ barrages, being constructed by Chhattisgarh
government, on Mahanadi River. These barrages might leave insufficient water to the Hirakud dam.
1.2. DEMAND FOR SPECIAL CATEGORY STATUS
Why in news?
A demand for Special Category Status for Andhra Pradesh has led to State-wide protests in AP, and heated debates in Parliament.
Background
The concept of a special category state was first introduced in 1969 by the 5th Finance Commission.
Some of the features required for special status were:
hilly and difficult terrain;
low population density or sizeable share of tribal
population;
strategic location along borders with neighbouring
countries;
economic and infrastructural backwardness;
Non-viable nature of state finances.
The decision to grant special category status was earlier with National Development Council.
Benefits to Special Category States (SCS)
The nature of benefits to Special Category states create further demand by many states to crave for this status.
The major benefits of SCS are
A major portion of the Normal Central Assistance (56.25%) is distributed to 11 Special Category States and
the remaining (43.75%) among 18 General Category States.
Only Special Category States receive Special Plan Assistance and Special Central Assistance grants.
The assistance for Externally Aided Projects (EAPs) flows to Special category States as 90 per cent grant
whereas for General Category States, it flows as loans.
The state share in Centrally Sponsored Schemes is usually lower for Special Category States as compared to General Category States.
Special-category states get a significant excise duty concession & other such tax breaks that attract
industries to relocate/locate manufacturing units within their territory.
There is no preferential treatment to SCS when it comes to sharing of the central tax revenue.
Box--Current Status Changes were observed from 2015-16 budget. While states began to receive a higher share of 42 percent of central taxes, the Centre diluted the benefits that accompanied the SCS status and even slashed the outlay for Centrally Sponsored Schemes.
1.3. COMPETITIVE FEDERALISM
Why in news?
Recent studies show signs of successful competitive federalism in Indian economy especially in terms of ease
of doing business. States are trying to attract investments by facilitating reforms.
What is competitive federalism?
Competitive federalism is a concept where centre competes with states and vice-versa, and states compete
with each other in their joint efforts to develop India.
The policy of one-size-fit-all is replaced with different policies of various states based on the own priorities
with in the state.
Competitive federalism follows the concept bottom-up approach as it will bring the change from the states.
The meaning of competitive federalism as espoused by the Liberty Foundation in the US would entail a
system that allows States to compete with each other over a broad range of issues to provide citizens with
the best value goods and services at the lowest cost.
1.4. INTER-STATE COUNCIL MEETING
Why in News?
Recently, the eleventh meeting of the Inter-State Council (ISC) was held after a gap of 10 years.
What is ISC?
Article 263 provides the establishment of an Inter-State Council to effect coordination between the states
and between Centre and states.
It is not a permanent constitutional body. It can be established ‘at any time’ if it appears to the President
that the public interests would be served by the establishment of such a Council.
First time it was set up on the recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission and established the ISC by a
presidential ordinance on May 28, 1990.
The ISC is proposed to meet thrice a year, but in 26 years, it has met only 11 times.
Composition
Prime Minister acts as the chairman of the council.
Members:
Union Ministers of Cabinet rank in the Union Council of Ministers nominated by the Prime Minister.
Chief Ministers of all states and Chief Ministers of Union Territories having a Legislative Assembly and
Administrators of UTs not having a Legislative Assembly
1.5. WESTERN ZONAL COUNCIL MEETING
Why in news?
The 22nd meeting of the Western Zonal Council was held in October, 2016 under the Chairmanship of Union
Home Minister.
The Zonal Councils are mandated to discuss and make recommendations on economy and social planning, border disputes, inter-State transport and linguistic minorities related issues.
About Zonal Council
The idea of zonal councils emerged during the course of debate on the report of the States Re-organisation
Commission 1956.
In the light of the vision of Pandit Nehru, five Zonal Councils were set up under the States Re-organisation
Act, 1956. (Zonal councils are not constitutional bodies, they are statutory bodies)
The Northern Zonal Council
The Central Zonal Council
The Eastern Zonal Council
The Western Zonal Council
The Southern Zonal Council
The North Eastern States i.e. (i) Assam (ii) Arunachal Pradesh (iii) Manipur (iv) Tripura (v) Mizoram (vi)
Meghalaya and (vii) Nagaland (viii) Sikkim are not included in the Zonal Councils and their special problems are looked after by the North Eastern Council, set up under the North Eastern Council Act, 1972.
1.6. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR POWERS IN UT
Why in News?
The powers of the Lieutenant Governor are being debated after LG of Puducherry made a statement that
she could choose to overlook the legislature depending on circumstances.
UTs and its Administration
Every UT is administered by the President through an
“Administrator” appointed by him.
The “Administrator” of the UT has powers similar to that of the
Governor but he is just a representative of the President and
not the constitutional head of the state like the Governor.
The administrator may be designated as Lieutenant Governor, Chief Commissioner or Administrator.
The powers and functions of the Administrator of a UT are defined under Article 239 and 239AA of the
Indian Constitution.
The UTs of Delhi and Puducherry have been provided with a legislative assembly and Council of Ministers.
Therefore the Administrators of these two UTs are meant to act upon the aid and advice of the Chief
Minister and his Council of Ministers.
Article 239AA deals with Special provisions with respect to Delhi.
Box-- The UT of Puducherry is guided by the Union Territories Act, 1963. The UT of Delhi is governed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 and the Transaction of Business of the Government of National Capital of Delhi Rules, 1993.
- CENTRE STATE RELATIONS - Index
1.1. Interstate water
-1.1.1. Single Tribunal for Inter-State Water Dispute
-1.1.2. Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal II Verdict
-1.1.3. Cauvery Water Issue
-1.1.4. Special Committee for Inter-Linking of Rivers
-1.1.5. Ken-betwa river project
-1.1.6. Odisha Rejects Panel on Mahanadi River
Dispute
1.2. Demand for Special Category Status
1.3. Competitive Federalism
1.4. Inter-State Council Meeting
1.5. Western Zonal Council Meeting
1.6. Lieutenant Governor Powers in UT
