UPSC Essentials | Mains answer practice — GS 2 : OPEC and constitutional framework of river water disputes (Week 153)

QUESTION 2

What are the constitutional and legal structures governing interstate river water disputes in India?

QUESTION 1: How do internal divergences among member states weaken the effectiveness of international organisations? Discuss in the context of Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Relevance: The question is important for GS Paper 2 (International Relations) under global groupings and institutions. The topic will also help in understanding challenges to multilateralism and global governance. It can be useful for linking with current affairs like institutional fragmentation in a multipolar world.

Note: This is not a model UPSC answer. It only provides you with a thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.

Introduction:

— Internal divergences among member states undermine the efficacy of international institutions by causing policy impasse, increasing noncompliance, and eroding trust on a global scale.

— The United Arab Emirates (UAE) announced its exit from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The exit of a major member would weaken the powerful cartel’s ability to influence global oil supply and prices as it did for decades. The UAE’s decision, and the consequent structural weakness within OPEC, is expected to exert downward pressure on oil prices in the longer term.

Body:

You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer:

— The UAE formally joined the alliance in 1967, six years before the OPEC oil embargo was imposed on nations like the US and the Netherlands owing to their support of Israel in the Arab-Israeli war. With oil prices nearly quadrupling in that period as a result, OPEC steadily gained geopolitical leverage while extending membership to countries such as Algeria and Nigeria. In 2025, the UAE was OPEC’s fourth-largest oil producer, accounting for over 11% of the group’s cumulative oil production. It trailed Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran.

OPEC oil production (2025).

In the context of the OPEC, these internal divergences manifest in several ways:

— Persistent non-compliance with production quotas undermined collective discipline.

— Internal divisions were increasingly shaped by divergent national priorities, particularly between economic diversification and continued oil dependence.

— When OPEC is viewed to be fragmented or dysfunctional, its capacity to influence market expectations—a major feature of its power—decreases.

Conclusion:

— According to Rystad Energy, as global oil demand approaches a peak and begins to decline due to the transition to renewables, incentives for countries like the UAE are shifting. Such producers — with spare production capacity — may prioritise monetising reserves and protecting market share over collective restraint.

— The UAE sits on vast oil reserves and enjoys some of the world’s lowest extraction costs. This means it is in a strong position to generate profits even during prolonged periods of low prices. That advantage has made Saudi-mandated production curbs progressively harder to justify from Abu Dhabi’s perspective.

(Source: UAE exits OPEC: What this means for oil prices, and India)

Points to Ponder

How do conflicting national interests (e.g., production quotas, revenue needs) undermine collective decision-making?

Can institutional reforms mitigate internal conflicts and improve effectiveness?

Related Previous Year Question

Do you think that BIMSTEC is a parallel organisation like the SAARC? What are the similarities and dissimilarities between the two? How are Indian foreign policy objectives realized by forming this new organisation? (2022)

QUESTION 2: What are the constitutional and legal structures governing interstate river water disputes in India?

Relevance: It is the core topic in GS Paper 2 (Polity & Governance) under federalism and centre-state relations. It is frequently linked with interstate conflicts and cooperative federalism debates. The topic has high relevance due to recurring disputes like Cauvery River and Mahanadi River.

Note: This is not a model UPSC answer. It only provides you with a thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.

Introduction:

— Article 262(1) of the Constitution states that “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”.

— Parliament passed the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956. It allows for the referral of such a disagreement to Tribunals upon receipt of an application from a State if the Union Government is persuaded that the dispute “cannot be settled by negotiations”.

Body:

You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer:

Constitutional provisions governing interstate river water disputes in India

— The Constitution contains specific provisions regarding resolution of water disputes. Under Article 262(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”.

— Under Article 262 (2): “Notwithstanding anything in the 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)” .

— The Constitution does not establish a mechanism for resolving water-related conflicts. It leaves it to Parliament, by legislation, to create such arrangements as it sees suitable for the resolution of such disputes and complaints.

— The Constitution also permits Parliament to decide and legislate whether court jurisdiction should be barred.

— The River Boards Act, 1956, was established by Parliament under Entry 56 of List I to promote the integrated and optimal development of interstate rivers and river valleys.

Conclusion:

— Almost six months after Odisha and Chhattisgarh agreed on an “amicable solution” to resolve the long-pending Mahanadi water dispute, the tribunal formed to adjudicate the matter has given the states a last opportunity to devise a settlement formula.

— The Supreme Court on February 2, 2026, directed the Centre to set up a tribunal to adjudicate the long-pending dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over sharing the water of the Pennaiyar River. The two states have also been engaged in disputes over water-sharing of the Cauvery River.

(Source: Rising water stress and inter-state river disputes, The Odisha-Chhattisgarh Mahanadi river dispute, amid new tribunal warning, Constitution of India)

Points to Ponder

How effective is the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 in resolving conflicts between states?

How does federalism influence cooperation or conflict over water sharing?

Related Previous Year Question

Constitutional mechanisms to resolve the inter-state water disputes have failed to address and solve the problems. Is the failure due to structural or process inadequacy or both? Discuss. (2013)

🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for April 2026. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com🚨

Previous Mains Answer Practice

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 152)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 153)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 152)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 151)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 152)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 151)

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.