Comment on the Mechanism for settling inter-state disputes in 150 words.
How the answer moves
The flow snapshot — the routes in, the body, the counter-view and the routes out.
Route 1 divided powers/interests → disputes built into the system → Constitution offers judicial + extra-judicial mechanisms
Route 2 federalism breeds conflict by design → Constitution responds through courts, tribunals and councils
Article 131 (SC exclusive original jurisdiction, legal not political) → Article 262 (Parliament, river water disputes, ousts Court, ISWD Act 1956 tribunals) → Article 263 Inter-State Council advisory + Zonal Councils / NITI Aayog / mediation / GST Council → rationale: many disputes political, not merely legal
water tribunal system the weak link → delay in constitution + award, weak enforcement, Article 136 appeals despite Article 262 bar → Nariman: innovative experiment that failed in performance
Route 1 mechanism layered but uneven → needs basin-wide, cooperative reform
Route 2 2019 Bill (permanent tribunal, Disputes Resolution Committee) only partly repairs the gap
Model answer
Handwritten, in the form it would be written in the examination hall.
