MAINS 2013
GS2
10 marks
Constitutional mechanisms to resolve inter-state water disputes have failed to address and solve the problems. Is the failure due to structural or process inadequacy or both? Discuss.
WRITE IN
7 min
200 words
What the examiner wants
Assess whether failure of water dispute resolution is due to structure, process or both.
DiscussExplain the different sides of the issue, use evidence, and finish with a balanced view.
Demand-wise check
- 1Structure: Article 262 and ISRWD Act 1956; ad hoc tribunals; no enforcement machinery; River Boards Act 1956 unused≈35 words
- 2Process: long delays (Cauvery tribunal 1990, award 2007, notified 2013), poor data, states defying awards, political use≈35 words
- 3Both: lack of basin-level approach and trust≈35 words
- 4Reforms: 2002 time limits, Cauvery Water Management Authority (2018), proposed single permanent tribunal (2019 Bill)≈35 words
Open in about 30 words and close in about 30.
Answer plan
MechanismStructural gapsProcess gapsVerdict (both)Reforms
Where marks usually go
- Not giving a clear verdict on structural vs process
- No case example with timeline
Draw this
- Timeline of the Cauvery dispute 1990-2018
Value addition
- CaseState of Karnataka v State of Tamil Nadu (2018): Supreme Court modified the Cauvery award and called river water a national asset.Supreme Court, 2018
- CommitteeSarkaria Commission (1988) recommended time-bound tribunals and enforceable awards.Sarkaria Commission
Mapped topper copies
Reviewed public-source references related to this PYQ. Same-syllabus references are labelled separately.
- Alfred Thomas · Page 9 ↗Reviewed PYQ reference
- Akash Kumar · AIR 101 · Page 3 ↗Same syllabus reference
- Shakti Dubey · AIR 1 · Page 29 ↗Same syllabus reference
- Alfred Thomas · Page 5 ↗Same syllabus reference
Links open original public sources. MainsBuddy does not host these answer sheets.
Next: plan for one minute, write it in 7 minutes, then get it checked.