Inter-State disputes

The Inter-State disputes between Karnataka and Maharashtra over areas that both States claim to be theirs has become nasty and noisy in recent weeks, even leading to violence.
Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai and Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis both from the BJP have crossed swords publicly.

Linguistic Idea of Reorganization:
- Although the States Reorganization Commission, 1956 was based on administrative convenience, states reorganized largely resembled the idea of one language one state.
Geographical Complexity:
- The other complexity has been terrain — rivers, hills and forests straddle two states in many places and borders cannot be physically marked.
- Colonial maps had left out large tracts of the northeast outside Assam as “thick forests” or marked them “unexplored”.
Indigenous Communities:
- Indigenous communities were, for the most part, left alone. Boundaries would be drawn for administrative convenience when the “need” arose.
- The 1956 demarcation did not resolve the discrepancies.
- When new states were carved out of Assam (Nagaland in 1963, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Tripura and Manipur in 1972, and Arunachal Pradesh in 1987), it was still not addressed.

Inter-state border disputes can be resolved by the states themselves or by the Centre through dialogue and political settlements.
Commissions appointed by the Centre.
Disputes can also be settled by the Supreme Court.

Legal right:
- Article 131 is the main provision in the constitution regarding centre-state / inter-state disputes. This article confers upon the Supreme Court of India exclusive jurisdiction to deal with a dispute involving legal rights; and also disputes:
  - between the Government of India and one or more States; or
  - between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or
  - between two or more States.
Extend of legality:
- There is a provison to this article which says that such jurisdiction does not extend to a dispute that arises out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or similar instrument entered into by the Government before the enactment of the constitution.
- Various judicial pronouncements, the court has established that:
  - This article cannot be invoked if one party is a private individual.
  - This article cannot be invoked if one party is a public sector corporation.
  - This article is not applicable if the dispute is purely political and does not involve any question of legal right.
  - The element of public law should be a component of the dispute.

Boundary disputes between the states can be settled by using satellite mapping of the actual border locations.
Reviving the Inter-state council can be an option for resolution of an Inter-state dispute.
Under Article 263 of the Constitution, the Inter-state council is expected to inquire and advise on disputes, discuss subjects common to all states and make recommendations for better policy coordination.
Similarly, Zonal councils need to be revived to discuss the matters of common concern to states in each zone—matters relating to social and economic planning, border disputes, inter-state transport, etc.
India is the epitome of unity in diversity. However, to strengthen this unity furthermore, both the centre and state governments need to imbibe the ethos of cooperative federalism.

Pic Courtesy: The Hindu

Content Source: The Hindu