Supreme Court raps Punjab for refusing to build its share of the SYL canal. Calls it a “clear case of highhandedness” and warns of further action by August 13.
New Delhi: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the Punjab government for not following its order regarding the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal.
The Court described Punjab’s actions as “highhandedness” for failing to complete its part of the canal, which is important for water sharing between the states of Punjab and Haryana.
The Bench, consisting of Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, told both the Punjab and Haryana governments to work together with the Union of India to find a peaceful solution to this long-standing water dispute.
The Court warned that if no resolution is reached, it will take up the matter again on August 13.
The Bench expressed strong concern about Punjab’s decision to cancel the land earlier acquired for the canal project.
Justice Gavai remarked,
“Was it not the act of high handedness that once the decree was passed for construction of the canal, the land was denotified which was acquired for the construction of canal? … This is trying to defeat the decree of the Court. This is a clear case of highhandedness. It should have helped three states. Land was acquired for the project and you denotified that.”
This case goes back to 1996 when Haryana filed an original suit against Punjab regarding the SYL canal.
The roots of the issue can be traced even further back to 1981, when Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan had signed an agreement to share river water and construct the SYL canal within two years.
But soon after, violent protests and disturbances in Punjab led to the construction being stopped.
In 2002, the Supreme Court ordered Punjab to complete the canal so that Haryana could receive its share of the water.
But in 2004, Punjab passed a law called the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, aiming to cancel all previous water-sharing agreements with other states, including the one signed in 1981.
Following this, the President of India referred the issue to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion. In 2016, the Supreme Court stated that Punjab does not have the power to cancel the water-sharing agreement on its own. It also declared the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 as unconstitutional.
However, even after all this, Punjab still has not completed its part of the canal, and the dispute continues to remain unresolved in courts and other forums.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh appeared for Punjab and said that building the canal has caused emotional unrest among the people of Punjab.
He said,
“This has become very emotive issue with the public, it is not government’s thing. Punjab, being a border state, could not afford this unrest on this issue. Therefore, whatever the measures the government of that time had taken, have been adjudicated. It is not as simplistic as Haryana is trying to put.”
He also argued that the Court must think about whether executing the decree is worth the cost of creating further unrest, and whether there can be any alternative solutions that also take Punjab’s concerns into account.
ALSO READ: Punjab and Haryana High Court Directs Punjab Government to Act Against Fake Travel Agents
He said,
“It needs to be examined whether the decree can and should be executed at the cost of unrest or alternative measures to satisfy Punjab’s need can be found.”
In response, the Supreme Court pointed out that Haryana had already completed its share of the canal construction.
The Bench said,
“They (Haryana) discharged their duty and constructed 100 km canal.. but you Punjab did not construct the 90 km you had to.”
The Court also questioned Punjab’s legal position and asked whether Punjab was trying to argue that the Court had not properly considered the matter before passing the decree.
The Court remarked,
“In a way you are attributing non-application of mind.”
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing Haryana, said that all possible efforts had been made over the years to resolve the issue, but now Punjab was ignoring the law.
He said,
“It is resulting into a huge problem. Imagine taking control over the works of common Bhakra dam and that body [Bhakra Beas Management Boards] had to go and file a petition in the Court.”
He also raised a serious concern over Punjab’s actions, saying,
“If original decree of Supreme Court is not given the weight it deserves, then what. It is a 2002 decree and it cannot be suspended unilaterally.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also heard an application from landowners and clarified that its earlier order to maintain status quo will only apply to the land needed to complete the main SYL canal that connects with the Haryana-constructed part.
The hearing saw multiple senior lawyers representing the various parties involved:
- Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh represented the State of Punjab
- Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, along with Additional Advocate General Lokesh Sinhal, appeared for the State of Haryana
- Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Union Government
- Senior Advocate PS Patwalia represented the intervenors (landowners)
This dispute, which has lasted over four decades, continues to affect the relationship between Punjab and Haryana. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the law must be followed, and all sides must work towards a practical and peaceful solution.
The next hearing is scheduled for August 13, and it remains to be seen whether both states and the central government can reach an understanding before then.
Case Title:
THE STATE OF HARYANA DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION THE SECRETARY Versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. | Original Suit No. 6/1996
Click Here to Read More Reports On New Criminal Law
