Question Q4Assess the effectiveness and describe the potential impact of delaysGS2GS2
Assess the effectiveness of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 in resolution of river-water disputes. Also describe the potential impact of delays in resolution of water disputes.
Introduction
Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956 outlines procedure and appoints tribunal to resolve inter-state river water disputes.
17 words
Main Body
Examples: Mahadaji Tribunal, Cauvery Tribunal
Analysis of Effectiveness:
Pros:
Resolution by Dialogue and conversation
Present debate in political environment
Resolution outside sect of judiciary without delay
Cons:
O&M tribunals have delivered awards
Time of decades to decide the award
Issues Studies not honouring the award of tribunal
Impact of delays in settlement:
1Livelihood: Drinking water to riparian states in parted.
2Politicization: Used by political leaders to draw votes during elections without evidence.
3Eroded of Trust: Trust in dispute attorney architective reduces which leads to destructive culture.
4Economic: Federal Disputes and Economic Blockade also delta Investment in region.
5Regionalism: Extend regional sentiment in the population - clashes riots etc.
State Tribunal:
Upset time bound
Compulsory hearing of award
Use Either Additive to schedule disputes
134 words10 paragraphs6 bullet points
Conclusion
State Tribunal with upset time bound, compulsory hearing of award, and use of either additive mechanism to schedule disputes
19 words
- Clear pros-cons analysis format
- Specific examples with tribunal names
- Addresses both effectiveness and delay issues
Topper
ADITYA HRIDAY UPADHYAY
Subject & Paper
GS2GS2
Topic
Federal Structure and Centre-State Relations
Inter-State Water Disputes
Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956 and Tribunal Mechanism
Writing Stats
170
Total words
10
Paragraphs
6
Bullets
Analytical with pros-cons structure
Tone