Supreme Court hears 1996 suit filed by Haryana against Punjab over Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal dispute

The Bench of Supreme Court Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih on Tuesday heard a 1996 suit filed by Haryana against Punjab over the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal dispute. Despite the Court ordering Punjab twice to build the SYL canal, the dispute remains pending, LiveLaw reported.

Sr Advocate Shyam Divan represented Haryana, whereas AG Gurminder Singh was present on behalf of Punjab.

‘Cooperate with Union for an amicable solution’

“We direct both states to cooperate with Union in arriving at an amicable solution. If not resolved amicably, we propose to take up the matter on 13 August. 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,” LiveLaw quoted the court order as saying.

It added, “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.”

Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal dispute: Arguments between Haryana and Punjab advocates in SC

“This work has to be completed. There is no impediment now...receivers have been appointed as far as subject matter of decree is concerned...efforts were made even post-decree for settlement, but to no avail. Another issue is water not being released...” Divan said. 

“Decree was for additional water...canal is yet to be constructed...issue whether Haryana is entitled to additional water is pending before the Tribunal,” Singh responded.

Divan stated that it is not a water issue, adding, “Punjab CM has gone on record saying we are not going to cooperate. Talks have failed. 2016 onwards, we are trying, but nothing has happened further.”

The affidavit says both CMs have agreed and states have agreed to mediation, Justice Gavai mentioned.

Divan argued that the matter at hand was not related to water management, but rather the construction of the canal. He said, “There is direction of Court that central govt has to...Punjab entire section has to be completed...”

“How many km is the canal in Haryana?” Gavai questioned.

“To answer the Court's query, out of total, 122 kms were to run through Punjab...the SYL canal issue has nothing to do with the water issue. It's about transmission. All we seek are further orders so that the decree is executed to satisfaction,” Divan replied.

“Union is diligently following this up...after so many years, construction of this canal will not be free from problems. Punjab is willing to cooperate. In 9 July order sheet, it was noted that GoI will provide alternatives for supply of water to Haryana and Rajasthan,” Punjab AG said.

Gavai said these matters have to be decided on law following consideration of factors. "What is the present situation? Is there ongoing dialogue?" he further asked. 

Divan responded, saying, “State of Punjab has unilaterally taken control of...at some point, this Court has to say sorry, no more! There was a review, which came to be dismissed." 

Haryana CM ‘reminded well in time’: Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann

Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann on May 6 stated that Haryana was “reminded well in time” that it was using more water and its quota of allotted water will be finished, claiming Haryana had “already used 103 per cent of the allocated water by March”, PTI reported.

Mann criticised the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) for its decision to release 8,500 cusecs of water to Haryana, calling it an unjust act that infringes on Punjab's rights. He said that such "robbery" would not be tolerated and emphasised that the board has no authority to make decisions concerning Punjab without its consent.

Mann also sought the reconstitution of the BBMB, terming it a “white elephant”. He stated on the floor of the House that Punjab did not suddenly cease the water supply to Haryana, alleging that the neighbouring state consumed river water over 90 per cent of its allotted share for the last numerous years.

"We did not tell them (Haryana) suddenly that we will not give water. We wrote six letters (to Haryana) every month at the BBMB meetings. We told them you would regret it after six months, as you are utilising more water. We gave a reminder six months back, but they did not follow it,” Mann added.