Polity · 5 Aug 2026

Article 262 interstate river water disputes

Consider the following statements:

  1. Article 262 empowers Parliament to bar the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 131 in adjudicating interstate river water disputes once a tribunal is constituted.
  2. The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) possesses statutory contempt powers to compel a non-complying state to release water as ordered.
  3. Water, as a subject, falls under Entry 17 of the State List, with Article 262 carving out a special tribunal mechanism specifically for interstate rivers.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A1 and 2 only
B2 and 3 only
C1 and 3 only
D1, 2 and 3

Tests the ability to distinguish an institution's implementation mandate from actual coercive enforcement power - a distinction that trips up candidates who assume a "final" tribunal award is automatically self-enforcing.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: T.N. urges SC to instruct Karnataka to comply with order on Cauvery water
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 5 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court after Karnataka allegedly failed to comply with a CWMA order to release 3,500 cusecs of Cauvery water, exposing the enforcement gap in India's interstate river water governance framework.

Why for UPSC

This tests the layer beneath the "Cauvery dispute" headline - the structural distinction between adjudication (settled) and enforcement (unsettled), a distinction UPSC values in federalism-linked GS2 questions.

Prelims summary

Article 262 lets Parliament insulate interstate river disputes from ordinary courts via tribunals, but statutory authorities like the CWMA lack coercive power to enforce compliance - a genuine adjudication-enforcement gap.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.