Top Stories

SC Asks Punjab To Enforce SYL Canal Decree

LiveLaw News Network
2 March 2017 2:17 PM GMT
SC Asks Punjab To Enforce SYL Canal Decree
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court today issued a stern warning to Punjab and said its November 10, 2016 verdict

allowing construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal in Haryana and Punjab has to be implemented in toto.

“The decree passed by this court has to be given effect to. We will deliberate upon Punjab's contention as to whether the judgement of a five-judge constitution bench, which held its law unconstitutional, was binding”, a bench of justices P C Ghosh and Amitava Roy said.

A five-judge bench, while answering the Presidential Reference  had held that the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 was unconstitutional as it negated the effect of apex court judgments of 2002 and 2004.

Senior advocate R S Suri, appearing for the Punjab government, said the five-judge bench verdict was not binding as it was given under its advisory jurisdiction and the Punjab law still stands. He also said that the decrees passed by the apex court was not executable.

The Punjab government told the bench that the verdict which held Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 as unconstitutional did not render the law invalid, as the apex court had only given an opinion on the Presidential Reference. The Parkash Singh Badal government told the court that the State Act took away the very basis of the 2002 decree that went in favour of construction of SYL canal.

Suri said Punjab was forced to pass the 2004 Act because its water complaint filed in January 2003 was not acted upon and the Centre never set up a water tribunal to address its grievances.

The bench however clarified that it would not revisit the facts and asked both the states to argue whether the verdicts including the one delivered on the Presidential Reference were binding or not. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Haryana government, opposed Punjab's submission and said if one state has to challenge the validity of a law passed by another, then it would pose serious consequences for India's integrity. If one state is forced to challenge the validity of a law passed by another state before the Supreme Court, then the Indian federation is not on a stable course, Divan said.

Next Story