Gold from Sand or Death of a River? Mandovi’s Struggle Under Article 48A

INTRODUCTION 

The Mandovi River in Goa is not just a water body it’s a lifeline for local people, fishermen, and wildlife. But in July 2025, the government allowed sand mining in the river, saying it’s needed for development. This decision raised a lot of concern. Many believe that digging out sand from the river can damage its natural balance, kill fish, harm riverbanks, and affect the lives of people who depend on it. That’s why environmentalists took the matter to the National Green Tribunal 

According to Article 48A of the Indian Constitution, the government must protect the environment and wildlife. But this situation makes us ask: Are we really following that promise? Or are we harming nature for short-term benefits? This issue reminds us that while development is important, we must not forget our responsibility to protect the environment for today and for the future.   

LEGAL ISSUE 

The Mandovi River (Kalasa-Banduri) dispute between Goa and Karnataka is not only about water sharing but also brings in important aspects of the Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 48A directs the State to protect and improve the environment, which Goa believes is being violated as the diversion of water could harm the Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary and disturb the ecological balance of the Western Ghats, a fragile biodiversity zone. At the same time, Karnataka argues that the project is necessary to provide drinking water to drought-prone districts, which links to Article 39(b) ensuring that natural resources are distributed to serve the common good. This situation creates a clear legal and moral conflict between environmental protection and social welfare. It also reflects the challenges in cooperative federalism when one state’s development needs clash with another state’s environmental rights. Although DPSPs are non-justiciable, they act as guiding principles for good governance, and this case shows how important it is for states to balance ecological sustainability with human development in a responsible way.

Relavant Case Laws 

1.M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

This was a landmark public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the pollution of the Ganga river. The Supreme Court held that the right to a clean and healthy environment is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also emphasized that Directive Principles like Article 48A (protection of environment), though not enforceable by themselves, must guide government actions.By seeing the  Mandovi dispute, Goa can argue that Karnataka’s project may lead to environmental harm, violating citizens’ right to life and clean water under Article 21 and Article 48A.

2.Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)

This case involved opposition to the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River. The Court ruled in favor of the project but highlighted the need for sustainable development—a balance between environmental concerns and developmental needs. It held that development cannot be stopped but must be done responsibly.While interpreting this issue,Karnataka’s argument that the water diversion is for public benefit can be justified if it follows sustainable practices. Goa, however, may use this to argue that Karnataka has not followed proper environmental safeguards.

3.State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000)

This case related to the Krishna River dispute and clarified the Centre’s power under Article 262 to resolve inter-state river disputes through a tribunal under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. It also reaffirmed that once a tribunal is set up, courts have limited jurisdiction over such matters.Mondovi river, case laid the foundation for setting up the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal. It also supports the legal route that Goa followed by approaching the tribunal instead of directly moving courts.

4.Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)

The Court held that the right to pollution-free water and air is part of the right to life under Article 21. It also stated that any citizen can file a PIL in public interest if environmental harm affects the community.In Mandivis river issue,Citizens and activists from Goa have challenged Karnataka’s project using similar reasoning — that the water diversion harms public access to clean water and disturbs ecological health.

5.T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India 

This case began with forest conservation issues in Tamil Nadu but expanded to include all forests in India. The Court issued multiple orders strengthening the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and emphasized the need to protect biodiversity and forest ecosystems.The Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary is ecologically sensitive, and any harm due to Karnataka’s project may violate principles laid down in this case, especially regarding forest protection and biodiversity conservation.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE’s

There are many legal principles that,where interconnected to this issue.I had listed the relavant principles that are suitable to this issue

Precautionary Principle :The precautionary principle is applied when an action may cause serious harm to the environment, even if there is no complete scientific proof yet. In the Mandovi River dispute, Goa argues that Karnataka’s water diversion project could damage the Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary and disturb the ecological balance of the Western Ghats. Even though the long-term environmental impact may not be fully proven, this principle says we should act with caution and avoid the project until it is completely safe. It supports Goa’s stand that preventive measures should be taken to avoid irreversible damage to nature.

Sustainable Development principle : The idea of sustainable development is to allow progress and use of natural resources while protecting the environment for future generations. Karnataka argues that the Kalasa-Banduri project is necessary for providing drinking water to its people, which is important. But Goa believes that this development will cause long-term harm to the environment. The principle says that development should not destroy forests, wildlife, or water sources permanently. So, both states must find a way that balances human needs with nature’s protection.

CHALLENGES 

Political challenge: One of the biggest political problems in the Mandovi River dispute is the conflict between regional interests and cooperative governance. The river flows through Karnataka, Goa, and Maharashtra, but each state has different political pressures. In Karnataka, especially in the northern districts like Hubballi and Dharwad, the demand for drinking water has become a major electoral issue. Political parties have promised to complete the Kalasa-Banduri project quickly to gain voter support. This has led to Karnataka taking unilateral steps like preparing DPRs (Detailed Project Reports) and pushing for clearances, even before full consensus was reached with Goa. On the other hand, the Goa government argues that the river is being diverted unfairly, and claims that the Centre is biased in favor of Karnataka, especially when both states are ruled by the same party. This makes the issue not just a legal or environmental matter, but a deeply politicized one, where decisions are influenced by votes, party power, and regional demands rather than mutual cooperation and long-term planning. As a result, the spirit of cooperative federalism suffers, and instead of resolving the issue through dialogue, it becomes a tool for political blame games and public protests.

Centre and state conflicts: The Mandovi River dispute also reflects a serious Centre-State conflict, especially in how approvals and decisions have been handled. Goa has accused the Central Government of favoring Karnataka by giving quick environmental clearances for the Kalasa-Banduri project, without properly addressing Goa’s environmental and legal concerns. This has raised questions about bias and unequal treatment by the Centre, particularly when the same political party is in power in both the Centre and Karnataka. Goa feels its rights as a smaller state are being ignored, and that the Centre is not acting as a neutral mediator, which it is expected to do in inter-state matters. Such actions weaken the principle of cooperative federalism, where all states should be treated equally, and decisions on shared resources like rivers must be taken through consultation and consensus. When the Centre is seen to side with one state over another, it damages trust and fuels regional resentment, turning a water-sharing issue into a political and constitutional conflict.

Enforcement challenge: The Mandovi River issue not only raises environmental concerns but also highlights a constitutional conflict between the Centre and States. Under Article 262 of the Indian Constitution, Parliament has the power to adjudicate disputes relating to the use and distribution of inter-state river waters, and it has done so by enacting the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. However, Goa alleges that the Centre failed to act neutrally, especially when it approved Karnataka’s Detailed Project Report (DPR) without full consent or proper environmental review. This affects the spirit of Article 131, which allows a state to move the Supreme Court directly when there is a legal dispute with the Centre or another state. Goa may rely on this to challenge the Centre’s action. Additionally, Article 48A, a Directive Principle of State Policy, requires both the Centre and States to protect and improve the environment, which Goa argues is being neglected in the rush to implement the project. Together, these constitutional provisions reflect how the Mandovi dispute has become a multi-dimensional conflict involving not just water rights, but also federal responsibilities and environmental duties.

CONCLUSION

The Mandovi River dispute is more than a simple water-sharing conflict it reveals the tensions within India’s federal structure, especially when political interests, environmental duties, and constitutional responsibilities collide. While Karnataka asserts its right to divert water for public welfare, Goa strongly opposes it citing ecological harm and Centre’s bias. Constitutional provisions like Articles 262, 131, 48A, and 21 offer a framework to resolve such inter-state issues lawfully and fairly. However, the real challenge lies in their effective implementation and in upholding the spirit of cooperative federalism. Unless the Centre acts neutrally and all states work in collaboration, such disputes will continue to deepen, risking both natural resources and federal harmony. A long-term, sustainable, and just solution must balance development with environmental protection and legal fairness for all parties involved.

REFERENCE

1. Websites:

Final Order and Decision of the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal, Government of India (Aug. 14, 2018), available at https://jalshakti-dowr.gov.in.

2. Constitution of India

3. Statutory Law:

Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, No. 33 of 1956, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).

4. Case :

Goa Found. v. Union of India, (2014) 6 S.C.C. 590 (India)

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 965 (India).