Himachal Pradesh will receive 11,973 million units of electricity from Punjab and Haryana over 20 years towards its 7.19% share, after the Supreme Court accepted a cashless settlement and closed the decades-old Bhakra-Nangal power dispute.
New Delhi: Himachal Pradesh’s entitlement to a 7.19% share of power from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas hydro-electric projects will now be met in electricity rather than cash. The Supreme Court on Friday, November 6, 2026, brought a multi-decade inter-State dispute to a close by accepting a cashless settlement framework, directing that the State receive 11,973 million units (MUs) from Punjab and Haryana over 20 years [State of Himachal Pradesh v. Union of India and Others].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana approved the arrangement evolved through deliberations led by Attorney General R Venkataramani with the States of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana.
How the figure was reached
The Central Electricity Authority had computed Himachal Pradesh’s original entitlement at 13,066 MUs. Under the framework accepted by the Bench, an adjustment of Rs 420 crore was made for the historical capital expenditure and debt servicing borne by Punjab and Haryana when the river valley projects were built, which brought the net return down to 11,973 MUs.
Arrears will be discharged in electricity and not in cash, an approach meant to ease the burden on the State exchequers of Punjab and Haryana.
Ten, fifteen, twenty or thirty years
The States differed on how long the transfer should take. Himachal Pradesh pressed for completion within 10 years, Punjab sought 30 years, and the Attorney General recommended 15 years. Balancing the fiscal constraints of Punjab and Haryana against Himachal Pradesh’s long-standing entitlement, the Court fixed a 20-year period.
The 2011 decree that stayed on paper
In 2011, the Supreme Court had upheld Himachal Pradesh’s claim under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, granting it a 7.19% share of power from the projects with retrospective effect from November 1, 1966. Disputes over monetary valuation and the financial strain on the States involved, however, stalled implementation of that decree for more than a decade.
Why the order matters
A decree in an inter-State dispute is only as good as its execution. This case shows how a declared entitlement can remain on paper for years when its money value and the paying States’ finances come into conflict, and how a negotiated, Court-approved framework led by the Attorney General can break such a deadlock.
By settling the claim in units of power over two decades instead of a lump-sum payment, the Court gave effect to Himachal Pradesh’s 1966 entitlement under the Punjab Reorganisation Act while taking account of the fiscal position of Punjab and Haryana.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Union of India and Others
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 6, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal with Advocates Vaibhav Srivastava and Sugandha Anand (AoR) for the State of Himachal Pradesh; Attorney General R Venkataramani
