Odisha Seeks Extension of Mahanadi Tribunal Tenure, Urges Centre to Mediate with Chhattisgarh

Bhubaneswar: The Odisha government on Wednesday urged the Centre to act as a mediator to help resolve the long-standing Mahanadi water-sharing dispute with Chhattisgarh, while also seeking an extension of the tenure of the Mahanadi Water Dispute Tribunal (MWDT).

Revenue and Disaster Management Minister Suresh Pujari said Odisha favours an amicable and negotiated settlement and has requested the Union government to take the lead in facilitating dialogue between the two states. The dispute is currently under the tribunal’s consideration.

“Odisha wants the dispute to be resolved amicably. The Centre needs to play the role of a mediator between the the two states,” Pujari told reporters.

He said the state has already held discussions with the Centre as well as the Chhattisgarh government. An inter-ministerial committee formed by Odisha and headed by Deputy Chief Minister K.V. Singh Deo has also engaged with Chhattisgarh authorities, including Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai, in an effort to find common ground.

At the same time, Odisha has formally written to the Centre seeking a nine-month extension of the MWDT’s tenure, as its current term is nearing completion. Justifying the request, Pujari said the tribunal’s chairperson had remained unavailable for nearly nine months, during which no hearings could be conducted.

“As a result, the proceedings were stalled. Given this loss of time, it is necessary to extend the tenure of the tribunal,” he said.

The MWDT was constituted in March 2018 under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, to adjudicate the dispute over the sharing of Mahanadi river waters between Odisha and Chhattisgarh. The conflict dates back to 2016, when Odisha approached the Centre alleging that upstream dams and barrages constructed by Chhattisgarh were affecting the natural flow of water into the state.

Despite being operational for several years, the tribunal has seen limited progress. Pujari noted that only the statement of one witness has been recorded so far, highlighting the need for additional time to ensure meaningful adjudication of the matter.