Two judges of the Supreme Court have recused themselves from Krishna River Water Dispute hearing.

• Judges recused as they did not want to be the target of partiality since the dispute is related to their home states.
• Recusal is an act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer.

About

• In 2021 Andhra Pradesh alleged that the Telangana government had deprived it of its legitimate share of water for drinking and irrigation purposes in an “unconstitutional and illegal” manner.
• The water of the Srisailam reservoir, which is the main storage for river water between the two states is the major point of contention
• Andhra Pradesh protested against Telangana’s use of the Srisailam reservoir water for power generation.

Background

• Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal:
• In 1969, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was set up under the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, and presented its report in 1973.
• Second KWDT
• The second KWDT was instituted in 2004 and delivered its report in 2010
• It made allocations of the Krishna water at 65 % dependability
• After the KWDT’s 2010 report:
• Andhra Pradesh challenged it through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in 2011.
• In 2013, the KWDT issued a ‘further report’, which was again challenged by Andhra Pradesh in the Supreme Court in 2014.
• Creation of Telangana:
• After the creation of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh asked that Telangana be included as a separate party at the KWDT and that the allocation of Krishna waters be reworked among four states, instead of three.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 262 of the Constitution provides for the adjudication of inter-state water disputes.
• Under this, Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution and control of waters of any inter-state river and river valley.
• The Parliament has enacted the two laws, the River Boards Act (1956) and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act (1956).
• The River Boards Act provides for the establishment of river boards by the Central government for the regulation and development of inter-state river and river valleys.
• The Inter-State Water Disputes Act empowers the Central government to set up an ad hoc tribunal for the adjudication of a dispute between two or more states in relation to the waters of an inter-state river or river valley.
• Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court is to have jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to such a tribunal under this Act.

Way Forward

• The water disputes can be tackled only by having a permanent tribunal established with appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court established over the tribunal’s decision.
• The immediate target of any Constitutional Government should be amendment to Article 262 and amendment to Inter-State Water Disputes Act and its implementation at the equal note.
• There is a need to rethink our strategy about water management, not just within states, but at the national level keeping the water scenario in the next 30 years.
• The channels of communication need to be improved to gain a consensus.