The effectiveness of the institutional architecture of India federalism in settling inter- state disputes:

♤ There are nine separate tribunals to adjudicate water disputes. Four of the tribunals took 10 to 28 years to deliver their awards. Currently, there is no definite timeframe to adjudicate disputes and as a result, most inter-state river water disputes continue to linger on.

♤ Inter-State Council has had just 12 meetings since it was set up in 1990. There was a gap of a decade between the 10th meeting in 2006 and the 11th meeting in 2016, and the council met again in November 2017. Further, the Council does not have the power to investigate issues and there is no compulsion on the government of the day to accept the outcomes of the meetings.

♤ Even the meetings of Zonal Councils have been sporadic which reduces their utility as an action oriented dispute resolution platform.

♤ Most of the institutional architecture of Indian federalism is focused on relations between the Union government and the states, and there is far less space to settle inter-state frictions.

Recently, the Union Cabinet approved Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019 wherein timely and expeditious resolution of inter-state river disputes would be ensured by a single tribunal. Even NITI Aayog’s Governing Council has been used as a platform to discuss policies as well as address inter-state disputes. Recently, a state’s Chief Minister called for greater inter-state cooperation to effectively tackle cross- border crimes.

Further, there is an institutional gap in the Indian union right now, which needs to be filled before inter-state frictions get out of control. The Centre would have to play the role of friend, philosopher and guide to the States in facilitating the growth process. It should take the initiative of re-energizing the Constitutionally-approved institutional mechanisms such as Inter-State Council, so that States get a platform to voice their concerns even more regularly.