India is a water-stressed nation, yet it does not have a single, unified water law. Instead, the legal landscape governing water is a patchwork – constitutional provisions, centuries-old common law doctrines, state statutes, customary practices, and evolving judicial interpretations all coexist. Understanding this landscape is not just an academic exercise; it directly shapes who gets water, how much, and on what terms – from a farmer irrigating her fields in Maharashtra to a village panchayat managing a drinking water source in Rajasthan.
Table of Contents
- The absence of a unified water code
- Constitutional framework: water as a state subject
- The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments
- Sovereign state power over water resources
- Categories of water rights in India
- Riparian rights
- Usufructory rights
- Customary water rights
- Water as a fundamental right: the Article 21 jurisprudence
- Statutory framework: key legislation
- Evolving nature of water jurisprudence
The absence of a unified water code
One of the defining features of Indian water law is the lack of a comprehensive national framework. Unlike countries such as South Africa or Brazil, which have enacted holistic water legislation, India’s water governance remains fragmented across multiple instruments. Scholars studying Indian water law point out that distinct concerns – irrigation, pollution, inter-state disputes, groundwater – have historically been addressed through separate enactments rather than through any unified code. This fragmentation creates real challenges: gaps in regulation, inconsistency across states, and difficulties in enforcing rights equitably.
Constitutional framework: water as a state subject
The Indian Constitution is the starting point for any discussion of water law. Under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, water is primarily a State List subject. Entry 17 of List II gives states jurisdiction over water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage, and water power. This means it is the state government – not Parliament – that typically legislates on water use and management within its territory.
However, state authority over water is not absolute. Entry 56 of the Union List grants Parliament the power to regulate and develop inter-state rivers and river valleys when declared to be in the public interest, and Article 262 empowers Parliament to provide for the adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys. Two central laws flow directly from this: the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and the River Boards Act, 1956. Notable tribunals established under this framework – such as the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal – have worked to establish water-sharing formulas between states with competing claims.
The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments
A significant shift came with the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments of 1992, which devolved governance responsibilities to local self-governing bodies. In the Eighth Schedule dealing with Panchayats, subjects such as “Minor irrigation, Water management and Watershed development,” “drinking water,” and “maintenance of community assets” are listed. This constitutional mandate was intended to bring water governance closer to the communities that depend on it most. In practice, however, implementation has been uneven – many states have been reluctant to fully devolve powers and resources to local bodies, creating a gap between the constitutional intent and on-the-ground reality.
Sovereign state power over water resources
Beyond the constitutional division of powers, the Indian state – both at the Centre and in the states – exercises broad sovereign powers over water resources. British colonial policy had focused on ensuring greater state control over water to maximise revenue for the Crown, and despite extensive powers over water, neither the colonial state nor the independent Indian state initially asserted any explicit obligation to provide drinking water to citizens. This historical context explains why, for a long time, the state’s role was more extractive than protective.
Today, the state’s authority over water is grounded in a broader constitutional vision. Article 39(b) of the Constitution directs the state to ensure that property and control over material resources of the community are distributed in a way that best serves the common good. This provision has been used to justify state acquisition of water resources – including for dam construction and irrigation projects – as a legitimate exercise of sovereign power for public benefit. Importantly, while landowners may claim certain rights to groundwater beneath their land, ownership in India is not absolute; it is not a fundamental right, and the government has the power to restrict it for the common good.
Categories of water rights in India
Indian water law recognizes several overlapping categories of rights. These are not neatly codified but emerge from constitutional provisions, statutory law, common law, and customary practice.
Riparian rights
Riparian rights are among the oldest recognized water rights in India, with roots in English common law. The term ‘riparian’ derives from the Latin word ‘ripa,’ meaning riverbank. A riparian owner is one who owns land along the bank of a river, lake, or other water body, and the rights attached to that land are called riparian rights. These are natural rights – they arise by virtue of land ownership and do not need to be separately acquired.
Every riparian owner who owns land abutting a natural stream, lake or pond is entitled to use and consume its water for drinking, household purposes, watering cattle, irrigating their land, and for manufacturing purposes, provided they do not cause material harm or injury to other riparian owners. Three core entitlements flow from this: a right to flow (water must reach them without obstruction), a right to quantity (water must not be materially diminished), and a right to purity (water must reach them unpolluted).
The Indian Easements Act, 1882 codified many of these common law principles. The common law doctrine of riparian rights was codified in India through this Act. In the landmark M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (the Ganga River Pollution case), the Supreme Court recognized and revived the doctrine of riparian rights, holding that the petitioner had locus standi as a riparian owner whose rights were violated by the pollution of the river Ganga, and admitted the matter as a Public Interest Litigation.
It is worth noting that riparian rights are increasingly being read alongside the public trust doctrine, which holds that water resources are held in trust by the state for public benefit. In recent times, the riparian right theory has increasingly been questioned as the appropriate basis for adjudicating water claims, and common law rights must today be read in the context of the recognition that water is a public trust.
Usufructory rights
Usufructory rights refer to the right to use and enjoy the benefits of water without owning it. These rights are especially relevant in India’s rural context. Usufructory rights are significant in the context of irrigation systems – where farmers often have such rights to water from canals, tanks, and other irrigation infrastructure – and in groundwater extraction, where landowners exercise usufructory rights to water beneath their land in practice. Unlike riparian rights, which are tied to land on a waterway, usufructory rights can arise through grant, contract, or long usage.
Customary water rights
Perhaps the most underappreciated dimension of Indian water law is the rich tradition of customary water rights. Customary water rights are based on traditional practices that have evolved over generations and are particularly important in tribal and rural areas where communities have developed intricate systems for water sharing and management. Examples include the khatri system in Rajasthan, the zabo system in Nagaland, and various tribal water management practices.
The introduction of formal water laws has often had the effect of displacing or extinguishing existing local rules and arrangements – the formalization of water law is rarely done in a vacuum, given water’s central importance in most communities. This tension between statutory law and customary practice remains a live issue, particularly in panchayat governance and community-managed irrigation systems.
Water as a fundamental right: the Article 21 jurisprudence
One of the most important developments in Indian water law has been the judicial recognition of the right to water as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to clean water and the right to access drinking water have been read as part of the right to life under Article 21 through a liberal and activist interpretation by the Supreme Court and High Courts in several cases.
In N.R. Desai v. State of Gujarat (2000), the Supreme Court recognized the right to clean water as a fundamental right under Article 21, highlighting the state’s responsibility to ensure that all citizens have access to safe water. Similarly, in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma, the Supreme Court held that the right under Article 21 embraces not only physical existence but also the quality of life. This has had tangible consequences: courts have compelled municipal bodies to supply clean water, restrained industrial polluters, and directed state agencies to act on contamination.
The Cauvery Water Dispute judgment of 2018 added another layer, emphasizing that equitable distribution of shared river waters between states is not merely a political negotiation but a matter subject to constitutional scrutiny and judicial oversight.
Statutory framework: key legislation
Several central and state statutes form the backbone of India’s water law regime.
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 established the Central and State Pollution Control Boards. State Pollution Control Boards function as primary regulatory authorities within their respective jurisdictions, possessing powers to plan pollution prevention programs, establish effluent standards, and set up laboratories for water quality monitoring. The Act, along with the Environment Protection Act, 1986, provided statutory bases for many drinking water claims brought before the courts during India’s rapid industrialization.
On the groundwater front, the Model Groundwater (Sustainable Management) Act, 2016 was introduced to regulate groundwater extraction and promote sustainable practices, though it is still awaiting adoption by individual states. Groundwater continues to be a critical yet legally under-governed resource – groundwater has until recently largely been governed by old legal principles linked to land ownership and has been largely treated independently from surface water, even as links between the two have been increasingly acknowledged.
At the state level, irrigation acts going back to the 1860s regulate canal water use, water rates, and command area development. A large number of Acts dealing with irrigation, canals and their maintenance, water rates and cess, command area development, and maintenance of tanks are in force in each state, some as old as the 1860s and 70s.
Evolving nature of water jurisprudence
Indian water jurisprudence has been in a constant state of evolution. The recognition of the right to water as part of the fundamental right to life has led to greater accountability of state and private actors with respect to overuse and pollution of water resources, and has also resulted in reclaiming resources appropriated by the colonial state through the articulation of the public trust doctrine.
More recently, the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2019 sought to streamline adjudication by establishing a single tribunal with multiple benches, replacing the earlier system of ad hoc tribunals. This reflects an ongoing effort to modernize the constitutional machinery for water governance. Yet structural challenges remain: lack of a unified national water code, uneven devolution to panchayats, inadequate groundwater regulation, and the growing pressure of climate change on freshwater availability.
The trajectory of Indian water law is clear – it is moving from a model focused on state control and revenue toward one that increasingly recognizes water as a fundamental human right and a public trust. But the gap between legal recognition and lived reality – for the rural farmer, the tribal community, the urban poor – remains wide.
What do you think? Given that water is primarily a state subject under the Indian Constitution, should there be a central law that creates a minimum enforceable right to water for all citizens? And with customary water management systems being gradually displaced by formal law, how should the legal framework balance local community practices with state regulatory control?
Leave a Reply