The issue has assumed greater urgency amid a worsening drought situation
More than half of the state’s sugar cane is grown in dam command areas and consumes nearly 70% of stored dam water. Sections 47 and 48 allow restrictions on water-intensive crops during scarcity, while Section 49 allows suspension of water supply. Because rules were never framed,” he said, these provisions have never been invoked.
Stay updated with the latest Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar news.
Water rights activist Abhijeet Dhanorkar said the delay had weakened Maharashtra’s ability to tackle drought. “The Maharashtra Irrigation Act was intended to be the backbone of water governance. Repeated attempts to contact water resources minister Radhakrishna Vikhe Patil for comment were unsuccessful till going to the press. Download the TOI App.
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar : The Maharashtra Irrigation Act, 1976, has remained without statutory rules for nearly five decades in a striking case of administrative neglect, rendering several key provisions ineffective even as the state grapples with recurring drought. In the absence of a legal framework under the 1976 law, the water resources department continues to rely selectively on the outdated Bombay Canal Rules, 1934, framed under the repealed Bombay Irrigation Act of 1879. With drought declared in 265 of Maharashtra’s 358 talukas, covering nearly 74% of the state, and local bodies ordered to reduce water supply by 10% ahead of summer, experts warned that the lack of enforceable irrigation rules had left agricultural regions exposed to water hoarding and inequitable distribution. 2015, they remain pending more than a decade later Although an expert committee submitted draft rules on July 28.
Water management expert and retired Water and Land Management Institute (WALMI)associate professor Madhav Purandare said the absence of implementing rules had created a regulatory vacuum, fuelling widespread water theft, vandalism and arbitrary decision-making. Without them, discretion runs unchecked,” he said. “Powerful vote-bank interests capture the bulk of available water while vulnerable farming communities are left high and dry,” he said. Calling it a case of “institutional lawlessness”, Purandare said the continued failure to notify rules effectively undermined Constitution by preventing legal accountability. “Nothing is legally committed, nothing can legally be challenged, creating space for unchecked privatisation and misuse,” he warned.
The Act empowers govt to curb or ban water-intensive crops like sugar cane during periods of acute water scarcity. It also authorises canal officers to arrest water thieves without a warrant, seize pumps, cut electricity supplies, impose fines and prosecute those tampering with irrigation infrastructure. “Failure to frame rules is not merely an administrative lapse but a systemic violation of constitutional intent. rules determine how, when and to whom water rights are allocated While the legislature lays down broad principles. Purandare alleged that the vacuum had enabled politically influential irrigators to corner water resources, leaving tail-end farmers deprived. The issue has assumed greater urgency amid a worsening drought situation. A public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Purandare led Aurangabad bench of Bombay high court in Aug 2015to direct state govt to set a timeline for finalising the rules.