'We're Doing This To Enemy Country, Let's Not Do It Within States': High Court On Punjab Allegedly Blocking Nangal Dam Water To Haryana

"We are doing this to our enemy country. Let us not do this within our States,"orally remarked Punjab & Haryana High Court on Tuesday (May 6) while hearing a plea moved by Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) seeking to remove Punjab police forces allegedly deployed at Nangal Dam and Lohand Control Room Water Regulation Offices to block the water to Haryana.

After hearing the matter for some time, a division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel took note of Punjab Government's statement that the Punjab Police will not interfere with the management of the board. "We will pass an order today itself and decide on this short point...if anyone has issue (with respect to water distribution) may approach the central government," it added.

Bhakra Beas Management Board approached the High Court alleging that on the morning of May 1, Punjab Government forcibly took over the control of the operation and regulation of Nangal Dam and Lohand Control Room Water Regulation Offices through its police force and prevented, forcibly, the release of water to Haryana.

The Board highlighted that in a meeting held on April 30, the Board had decided to release 8,500 cusecs of water to Haryana, to which Punjab objected.

The action of the Punjab Government is wholly unconstitutional and illegal and amounts to direct interference in Statutory functioning of the Board, "which is performing a function of National Importance, which is sovereign in nature,” stated BBMB's plea.

It added that the supply of water to Haryana or for that matter to any of the partner States is a matter of lifeline of the State concerned and any forcible action such as the one stated above by any of the partner States in the functioning of the Board would lead to “anarchy and lawlessness by the State itself.”

Another plea was filed by Ravinder Singh Dhull, a lawyer by profession who sought release of water to Haryana as resolved by the Board.

During the hearing senior counsel Gurminder Singh appearing for Punjab Government submitted an affidavit to the Court and said, "the Law and order is a State subject, and it is the prerogative of the state to decide on the threat perception and the deployment of forces. It is not for the Board to ask the state to remove the deployment."  Singh further added that the deployment of forces is also in light of cross-border security issues with Pakistan.

Senior Advocate Rajesh Garg appearing for petitioner BBMB submitted that as far as security is concerned, there is a Director of Security. "If states start interfering with the management of the Board and stop the water supply, it will lead to chaos," he said. He further apprised the Court that earlier there were only 15 security personnel before the dispute, and now the number has risen to 55 under the garb of the Indo-Pak issue.

The ASG Satya Pal Jain appearing for the Central Government said that the flow of water by BBMB is not only to Haryana, but also to Rajasthan and Delhi. "If any state party has an issue with the resolution passed by the Board to release water to Haryana, it must be challenged through appropriate legal means", he said.

The ASG further submitted that the water to be released is not out of Punjab's share and that Court may direct the Punjab Government to remove the police force, allowing BBMB to take control so that the flow of water can take place.

On the other hand, Advocate General for Haryana Parminder Singh contended that Punjab is opposing distribution of water "tooth and nail". "Under the garb of protecting the dam, what are they doing. This is not their job. The demand of 8500 cusecs is not just for Haryana but Delhi also. 1,049 is for Delhi, 850 is for Rajasthan," he added.

Pertinent to note that, in the dispute pending between the states of Punjab and Haryana over the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, the Supreme Court today called out the Punjab government for de-notifying land which was acquired for the construction of the canal in furtherance of the Court's decree.

Labelling the action "high-handedness", Justice BR Gavai said to Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh, appearing for the State, "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."