Once Parliament bars courts under Article 262(2), the Supreme Court can never touch a river water dispute again.

In practice, the Supreme Court has still heard appeals against tribunal awards (as in the Cauvery dispute), reading the bar narrowly rather than as a total, permanent exclusion of judicial oversight.

Article 262 itself creates river water tribunals.

Article 262 only gives Parliament the power to make such a law; the actual tribunals (Cauvery, Krishna, Narmada, etc.) were created by a separate law, the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, passed using this power.

The Constitution of India

Article 262

Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of interState rivers or river valleys

(1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley.§

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1).§

Why this exists

India's major rivers—like the Cauvery, Krishna, Narmada, and Ravi-Beas—flow through many states, and water is a scarce, emotionally and economically vital resource, especially for farming. The framers worried that ordinary litigation in courts would be too slow, too adversarial, and ill-suited to complex hydrological and political questions. Article 262 lets Parliament instead set up specialised, expert tribunals to resolve inter-state river disputes, and gives Parliament the option to shut out court jurisdiction so that these disputes are settled through negotiation and expert tribunals rather than prolonged litigation. Acting under this Article, Parliament passed the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, under which tribunals like the Cauvery, Krishna, and Narmada Water Disputes Tribunals were formed.

How courts read it

Although Article 262(2) allows Parliament to bar courts entirely, the 1956 Act itself did not fully oust Supreme Court review. In the long-running Cauvery water dispute, the Supreme Court held that while it cannot decide the original inter-state dispute (that is for the Tribunal), it can hear appeals against a Tribunal's award under its ordinary appellate powers, and it exercised this power to modify the Cauvery Tribunal's water-sharing formula. Courts have thus read the bar in clause (2) narrowly, insisting it applies only if Parliament's law clearly and completely excludes judicial review, and even then constitutional courts have kept some supervisory role over whether tribunals acted fairly and within their powers.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Once Parliament bars courts under Article 262(2), the Supreme Court can never touch a river water dispute again.
Fact: In practice, the Supreme Court has still heard appeals against tribunal awards (as in the Cauvery dispute), reading the bar narrowly rather than as a total, permanent exclusion of judicial oversight.
Myth: Article 262 itself creates river water tribunals.
Fact: Article 262 only gives Parliament the power to make such a law; the actual tribunals (Cauvery, Krishna, Narmada, etc.) were created by a separate law, the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, passed using this power.