By: Pradeep Purandare
Aurangabad: The Maharashtra Irrigation Act (MIA) of 1976, a cornerstone for water management in the state, has languished without implementation for nearly five decades due to the absence of accompanying rules. Despite being enacted 49 years ago, the state government has failed to frame the necessary rules, leading to administrative chaos and legal contradictions.
Key Issues Highlighted:
- Legal Vacuum: The MIA 1976 replaced the outdated Bombay Irrigation Act of 1879, but in the absence of rules, the Water Resources Department (WRD) continues to rely on the archaic Bombay Canal Rules of 1934, which are inconsistent with the current Act.
- Selective Implementation: WRD has been accused of selectively applying old rules, such as ignoring provisions like Rule 9(e) of the 1934 rules, which restricts sugarcane irrigation to two crops in five years to conserve water.
- Broader Neglect: The MIA 1976 is not an isolated case. Out of nine irrigation-related Acts in Maharashtra, only one—the Maharashtra Management of Irrigation Systems by Farmers (MMISF) Act, 2005—has operational rules.
- Judicial Intervention: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in 2014 sought directives for framing the rules. The Aurangabad bench of the Mumbai High Court in 2015 ordered the state to specify a timeline for finalizing the rules. However, a decade later, no progress has been made, raising concerns about contempt of court.
- Constitutional Implications: Water is a state subject under the Indian Constitution (Entry 17, State List). The failure to implement the MIA 1976 and other Acts undermines the constitutional mandate for water governance, including treating water as a common pool resource and the state’s role as its trustee.
Expert Opinions:
- Pradeep Purandare, a retired Associate Professor and water management expert, criticized the government’s inaction, calling it an “insult to the legislature and the people.” He pointed out that the absence of rules has created “complete anarchy” in irrigation management.
- The Chitale Commission (1999) had earlier flagged this issue, noting confusion among departmental engineers due to the lack of unified rules.
Call to Action:
Purandare and other stakeholders are considering returning to court to highlight the contempt of the 2015 order. The delay in framing rules is seen as a deliberate move to protect vested interests, bypassing equitable water distribution and sustainable practices.
For further details, contact:
Pradeep Purandare
Email: pradeeppurandare@gmail.com
