'Punjab Sensitive Amid India-Pakistan Firing': High Court Grants Time For Filing Reply To Contempt Case Over Water Dispute With Haryana

"This Court is conscious of the present sensitive atmosphere prevailing in the State of Punjab due to cross border firing between India and Pakistan and therefore, does not want to burden the Chief Secretary as well as the Director General of Police, Government of Punjab, with any contempt notice," said the Punjab & Haryana High Court while granting time to Punjab Government to respond to Punjab-Haryana Water dispute contempt plea.

However, the bench opined that "prima facie" directions issued by the High Court on May 6, were not complied with by the Punjab Government.

On May 6, the High Court had restrained the Punjab Police from "interfering" in the day-to-day functioning of the dam and asked to o abide by the decision of a Union Government meeting which had resolved to release extra water from Bhakra Dam to Haryana, for the State's emergent need. However, a contempt plea was filed alleging that the Punjab Police obstructed the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) from releasing Dam water to Haryana.

In an order released today, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel refrained from issuing contempt notice amid border tensions and directed the Punjab Government to submit their replies by identifying those police personnel who were involved in restraining the Chairman and functionaries of BBMB in discharging their official duties to operate and manage the Bhakhra Nangal Dam & Lohand Control Room Water Regulation Offices.

The Court also clarified that since the Punjab Government has chosen not to challenge the order passed on May 6 till date, it reiterates that the directions passed in the order should be complied with. 

During the proceeding on May 9, the Court noted that the Chairman of BBMB - Shri Manoj Tripathi filed an affidavit which prima-facie revealed that the directions passed by the Court on May 6 were not complied with.

The Court also took on record the meeting note and record of discussion submitted by ASG Satya Pal Jain, which was convened by the Ministry of Power, Government of India, "to discuss emergent issues of BBMB held under the Chairmanship of the Union Home Secretary, Government of India."

Perusing the affidavit filed by the BBMB chairman the bench noted that, "it is obvious that the Chairman of the BBMB has stated in clear terms that he alongwith his Directors were obstructed by the police personnel of the State of Punjab in discharging their duties of operating, functioning and regulating Bhakhra Nangal Dam & Lohand Control Room Water Regulation Offices managed by BBMB."

Opining that prima facie directions issued by the High Court on May 6, was not complied by the Punjab Government, the Court gave an opportunity to the Chief Secretary of Punjab as well as the Director General of Police, Punjab to file their respective replies "identifying those police personnel of the State of Punjab who had obstructed the Chairman of BBMB and other functionaries of BBMB in performing their day to day functioning in operating and managing the Bhakhra Nangal Dam & Lohand Control Room Water Regulation Offices."

The Court pointed that Senior Counsel Gurminder Singh appearing for Punjab Government highlighted that the decision taken by the Committee presided over by Union Home Secretary, Government of India on May 2, who admittedly is not the competent authority, to deal with the matter of allocating of the water to States.

"The contention of learned senior counsel for State of Punjab may or may not be true, but the fact remains that this Court is looking at the issue from the limited scope available under the contempt jurisdiction. If the order dated 06.05.2025 directed the State of Punjab to abide by the decision of the meeting held on 02.05.2025 and not to interfere in the day to day functioning, operation and regulation of Bhakhra Nangal Dam & Lohand Control Room Water Regulation Offices, then so long as the order dated 06.05.2025 stands and is not disturbed by any higher forum or this Court, it's veracity and justifiability cannot be gone into," said the bench.

The bench further observed that, it is settled law that "So long as the judicial order stands, it needs to be complied with notwithstanding the said judicial order being erroneous or incorrect in the eyes of a particular party."

The matter is listed for May 28, for further consideration.

Background

Amid the ongoing dispute between the states of Punjab and Haryana over sharing of Bhakra Nangal dam water, the High Court on May 8 asked the Chairman of BBMB to file on affidavit his claim that the Punjab Police stopped him from releasing water to Haryana. Pertinent to note that on May 7, the High Court passed an order restraining the Punjab police from "interfering" in the day-to-day functioning of the dam. However, appearing through video conference mode, BBMB Chairman Manoj Tripathi apprised the Court that two BBMB officers who were directed to release 200 cusecs water to Haryana were restrained by the police agency.

The Chairman himself claimed to be "gheraoed" at the guest house by some civilians, when the Punjab Police rescued him. The Court had then directed Tripathi to file his statement on affidavit.

The Court had further directed that Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain to produce the relevant minutes of meeting dated May 2, where it was decided to release 4500 cusecs extra water to Haryana in 8 days, for meeting emergent needs of the State.

The development comes in a contempt petition moved by a Gram Panchayat, alleging that the irrespective of the High Court order asking the Punjab Police not to interfere with the day to day activities of the Board, the agency restrained the BBMB officers from discharging their duties.

Mr. R.Kartikeya, Advocate, Ms. R.Akanksha, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner (through v.c.)

Mr. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advocate (through v.c.) with

Mr. Chanchal Kumar Singla, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Advocate, Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State of Punjab.

Mr. Pravindra Singh Chauhan, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State of Haryana (through v.c.).

Mr. Rajesh Garg, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.K.Narwal, Advocate, Ms. Neha Matharoo, Advocate for BBMB.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Counsel for respondent-Union of India

Click here to read/download the order