Article 262 of CoI : Article 262: Co-ordination between States Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-State rivers or river valleys.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Scenario: The states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are in dispute over the sharing of water from the Cauvery River, which flows through both states.

Application of Article 262:

1. Parliamentary Intervention: The Parliament enacts a law to establish the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu regarding the use, distribution, and control of the Cauvery River waters.
2. Exclusion of Judiciary: According to the law enacted by Parliament, the Supreme Court and other courts are barred from exercising jurisdiction over the dispute. This means that the Tribunal's decision is final and binding on both states, and they cannot appeal to the Supreme Court or any other court.

Example 2:

Scenario: The states of Punjab and Haryana are in conflict over the allocation of water from the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, which is meant to distribute water from the Sutlej River to both states.

Application of Article 262:

1. Parliamentary Intervention: The Parliament passes a law to create the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Water Disputes Tribunal to resolve the conflict between Punjab and Haryana regarding the water distribution from the SYL canal.
2. Exclusion of Judiciary: The law specifies that the Supreme Court and other courts do not have the authority to hear cases related to this dispute. As a result, the Tribunal's ruling on the matter is conclusive, and the states must comply with its decision without seeking further judicial intervention.

Example 3:

Scenario: The states of Maharashtra and Gujarat are in disagreement over the water sharing from the Narmada River, which flows through both states and is crucial for their irrigation and drinking water needs.

Application of Article 262:

1. Parliamentary Intervention: The Parliament enacts legislation to form the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal to address the issues between Maharashtra and Gujarat concerning the Narmada River's water usage and distribution.
2. Exclusion of Judiciary: The enacted law includes a provision that prevents the Supreme Court and other courts from having jurisdiction over the dispute. This ensures that the Tribunal's decision is the final authority on the matter, and the states must adhere to its ruling without seeking recourse in the judiciary.

Example 4:

Scenario: The states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are in conflict over the sharing of water from the Krishna River, which is vital for their agricultural and industrial activities.

Application of Article 262:

1. Parliamentary Intervention: The Parliament passes a law to establish the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana regarding the Krishna River's water allocation.
2. Exclusion of Judiciary: The law stipulates that the Supreme Court and other courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over the dispute. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision is binding on both states, and they cannot challenge it in the judiciary.

Example 5:

Scenario: The states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are in disagreement over the water sharing from the Ganga River, which is essential for their irrigation and drinking water supply.

Application of Article 262:

1. Parliamentary Intervention: The Parliament enacts a law to create the Ganga Water Disputes Tribunal to resolve the conflict between Uttar Pradesh and Bihar regarding the Ganga River's water usage and distribution.
2. Exclusion of Judiciary: The law includes a provision that bars the Supreme Court and other courts from having jurisdiction over the dispute. This ensures that the Tribunal's decision is final and binding on both states, and they must comply with its ruling without seeking further judicial intervention.