In the long-standing Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal dispute between Punjab and Haryana, the Supreme Court came down heavily on the Punjab government for its decision to de-notify land that had already been acquired for the construction of the canal. The Court termed the move a clear act of “high-handedness”.
Justice B.R. Gavai, addressing the State’s representative, Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh, stated:
Read Also:-Supreme Court Rejects PowerGrid's Plea to Recover Rs.24 Crore Transformer Cost Through Tariff Hike
“Mr. Advocate General, was it not an act of high-handedness that once a decree was passed, land which was acquired for construction of the canal was de-notified? It is trying to defeat the decree of the Court. Clear case of high-handedness.”
When the counsel attempted to justify the move by explaining that Haryana was receiving water as per its consumption and that its entitlement to additional water was still under consideration by a Water Tribunal, Justice Gavai responded:
“So according to you, this Court has passed decree without considering everything? You are attributing non-application of mind.”
Read Also:-Supreme Court Restores Election of CPI(M) MLA A Raja, Overturns Kerala High Court Verdict
The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih, urged both states to cooperate with the Union Government to find an amicable solution. The Court stated that if no resolution is reached, the matter will be taken up again on 13 August.
The Court also provided an important clarification regarding its earlier status quo order.
“This Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo. Dispute before the Court is with regard to main SYL canal. Dispute does not pertain to internal network of canal which was to be constructed by Punjab for distribution within Punjab. We therefore clarify that status quo will apply only to land in Punjab required for construction of main SYL canal so as to link it to the canal already constructed by Haryana.”
Background of the Dispute:
The dispute dates back to 1996, when Haryana filed a suit against Punjab, seeking the construction of the SYL canal. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Haryana, directing Punjab to complete the canal within a year. Despite a reiteration of this direction in 2004, Punjab failed to act.
That same year, Punjab passed the Termination of Agreements Act, seeking to annul the water-sharing agreement with Haryana. However, in 2016, the Supreme Court struck down the Act as unconstitutional. The matter reached the top court through a presidential reference, and the state’s plea to be released from its obligation was rejected.
A Constitution Bench led by Justice Anil R. Dave held:
“The agreement could not have been unilaterally terminated by one of the parties by exercising its legislative power and if any party or any state does so, such unilateral action of a particular state has to be declared contrary to the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956.”
Additionally, the 2004 decree, which ordered the central government to take over the canal construction from Punjab, remains in effect.
Story to be updated.
Appearance:
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan (for Haryana); Sr Adv Gurminder Singh (for Punjab); Senior Advocate PS Patwalia
Case Title: THE STATE OF HARYANA DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION THE SECRETARY Versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. | Original Suit No. 6/1996
