Inter-state border disputes in India arise due to historical boundary ambiguities, colonial-era administrative demarcations, linguistic reorganisation of states, and competing claims over natural resources, forests, and administrative control. While most disputes are resolved through negotiation or judicial intervention, several continue to affect Centre–State and inter-state relations.
Inter-State Border Disputes in North-East India
| Dispute | Cause | Current Status |
|---|---|---|
| Assam–Mizoram | Originates from differing interpretations of the 1875 Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation and the 1933 boundary notification. | Violent clashes occurred in 2021. Both states have agreed to maintain peace while negotiations continue under the Union Government. |
| Assam–Meghalaya | Boundary dispute over 12 contested sectors due to differing interpretations of the Assam Reorganisation Act, 1971. | A 2022 agreement resolved 6 sectors, while negotiations continue for the remaining areas. |
| Assam–Nagaland | Nagaland claims several forested areas historically administered by Assam. | Matter is pending before the Supreme Court, alongside periodic political negotiations. |
| Assam–Arunachal Pradesh | Dispute arose after Arunachal Pradesh became a Union Territory and later a State. | A 2023 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) settled several disputed villages; discussions continue on remaining areas. |
| Assam–Tripura | Minor boundary disagreements in certain border villages. | Largely managed through bilateral coordination and joint verification. |
Inter-State Border Disputes (Outside North-East India)
| Dispute | Cause | Current Status |
|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra–Karnataka (Belagavi Dispute) | Maharashtra claims Marathi-speaking areas, particularly Belagavi, while Karnataka asserts territorial integrity. | Case is pending before the Supreme Court. |
| Odisha–Andhra Pradesh (Kotia Villages) | Both states claim jurisdiction over villages in the Kotia region due to historical boundary differences. | Administrative disputes continue despite periodic bilateral meetings. |
| Haryana–Himachal Pradesh | Disagreement over certain villages and forest areas along the border. | Issue remains unresolved through administrative consultations. |
| Punjab–Haryana (Chandigarh) | Both states claim Chandigarh as their capital following the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. | Chandigarh continues as a Union Territory serving as the capital of both states. |
| Ladakh–Himachal Pradesh | Boundary differences exist in certain remote Himalayan regions following the creation of the Union Territory of Ladakh (2019). | Joint surveys and administrative consultations are underway. |
Constitutional Provisions Related to Inter-State Border Disputes
| Article / Provision | Provision | Relevance to Border Disputes |
|---|---|---|
| Article 1 | Declares India as a "Union of States" and specifies that the territory of India comprises States, Union Territories and other acquired territories. | Provides the constitutional basis for the territorial organisation of States. |
| Article 3 | Empowers Parliament to form new States or alter the boundaries, area or names of existing States by law. | Enables Parliament to legally modify inter-state boundaries to resolve disputes. |
| Article 131 | Grants the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes between the Union and States or between two or more States. | States can directly approach the Supreme Court for adjudication of boundary disputes (e.g., Maharashtra–Karnataka). |
| Article 262 | Empowers Parliament to provide for adjudication of inter-state river water disputes and exclude Supreme Court jurisdiction in such matters. | Though limited to river water disputes, many boundary conflicts are linked with river boundaries and resource-sharing issues. |
| Article 263 | Provides for the establishment of an Inter-State Council to investigate, discuss and recommend solutions to inter-state disputes. | Promotes negotiation and cooperative resolution of boundary disputes. |
| Seventh Schedule (Union List, Entry 97 & State Reorganisation Laws) | Parliament has legislative competence over matters relating to reorganisation of States under Article 3. | Facilitates statutory changes in state boundaries through parliamentary legislation. |
Mechanisms to Resolve Inter-State Border Disputes
- Union Government Mediation: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) acts as a neutral mediator by facilitating talks, constituting committees and encouraging consensus between the disputing States.
- Inter-State Council (Article 263): The Inter-State Council provides a constitutional forum for consultation and dialogue between States. Though its recommendations are advisory, it helps promote cooperative dispute resolution.
- Supreme Court Adjudication (Article 131): When negotiations fail, States may invoke the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 131. The Court delivers a legally binding decision on disputes involving legal rights.
- Bilateral Negotiations: The concerned States resolve disputes through direct dialogue, negotiations and mutual agreements. This is the most preferred mechanism as it strengthens cooperative federalism and avoids prolonged litigation.
- Survey of India & Modern Mapping: The Survey of India uses GIS, satellite imagery, GPS and digital cadastral surveys to accurately demarcate state boundaries and minimise future disputes.
Committees/Commissions Related to Inter-State Border Disputes
States Reorganisation Commission (SRC), 1953
Chairman: Justice Fazl Ali
The Commission examined the reorganisation of states primarily on linguistic and administrative grounds. Its recommendations led to the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which resolved several boundary issues while also giving rise to some future disputes.
Mahajan Commission, 1966
Chairman: Justice Meher Chand Mahajan
Constituted to resolve the Maharashtra–Karnataka (Belagavi) border dispute. It recommended retaining most of Belagavi with Karnataka, though Maharashtra rejected the report.
Sundaram Committee, 1971
Chairman: Justice S.T. Sundaram
Set up to examine the Assam–Nagaland boundary dispute. The committee suggested adjustments based on historical and administrative records, but its recommendations were not fully implemented.
Shastri Commission, 1972
Chairman: Justice K.K. Shastri
Established to further examine unresolved Assam–Nagaland border issues after the Sundaram Committee. However, its recommendations also failed to secure consensus between the two states.
Local Commission (Supreme Court), 2021: Appointed by the Supreme Court to conduct field verification in the Assam–Nagaland border dispute. It assists the Court by providing factual reports on disputed areas before final adjudication.
Conclusion: Inter-state border disputes test the spirit of India's cooperative federalism and constitutional governance. Their durable resolution lies in sustained political dialogue, scientific boundary demarcation, impartial constitutional institutions and respect for federal principles, ensuring that territorial disagreements never impede national unity, development or harmonious Centre–State relations.
