Supreme Court Urges Union To Play A Proactive Role To Resolve Sutlej-Yamuna Canal Dispute Between Punjab & Haryana

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, asked the Union Government to play a proactive role in the endeavour made by the neighbouring States of Punjab and Haryana to find workable solutions in relation to the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal dispute.

A three-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing an original suit filed by Haryana against Punjab in 1996, in which a favourable ruling was received by Haryana in 2002. Despite the Apex Court directing Punjab twice to build the SYL canal, the dispute between the two states continues to this date.

Previously, the Haryana government had informed the Apex Court that bilateral talks with Punjab had failed to yield any meaningful outcome, and urged it to consider issuing directions that would require the Punjab government to complete the remaining portion of the canal, pursuant to a 2002 ruling. The construction of the proposed 211-kilometre-long canal connecting Sutlej and Yamuna was planned in 1966 after the reorganisation of Punjab but received momentum only after the centre issued a notification in 1976 that both the states would receive 3.5 million acre-feet (MAF) of water each, and a 1981 water-sharing agreement was signed between them to reallocate the waters of Ravi and Beas. While the Haryana government built 90 kilometres of the canal that fell within its territory, the work in Punjab remained incomplete due to mounting pressure from the opposition parties and other groups at that time.

On Thursday, the Counsel appearing for the Haryana Government submitted on instructions that there was no possibility of reaching a workable solution though bilateral talks. Senior Advocate, Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the Punjab Government apprised the Bench that the Union Government is of the opinion that more meetings are required to be held in order to find a solution to the dispute. Considering both the States have reached an impasse on the settlement talks, Justice Amanullah asked the Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani -

“The Union Government is to act as final arbiter in water disputes between two states. Why don't you play a more active role than being a silent spectator in the background.”

The Attorney General responded that for the Union Government to act as an arbiter a different trajectory is to be followed; an formal river water dispute application is to be made. He further informed the Bench that despite the endeavour of the Union Government, the talks between the two States were not going anywhere.

The Counsel for the Haryana Government submitted that no settlement can be reached until and unless the Punjab Government shows intention to move from its stated position. Noting the same, the Bench reckoned, “We once again emphasise that any settlement requires parties to move from their stated position.”

It further recorded -

“We expect the endeavours of the States to sit together to still find a solution on the way forward. We call upon the States to hold meetings more frequently and at the highest political dispensation level so that there is some progress in the discussion.”

Another issue flagged by Haryana was regarding Punjab’s reliance on the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 stating that it is still in force. The Counsel argued that the reliance is not sustainable in law. The Bench made it amply clear that no reliance can be placed on the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, once the presidential reference has been answered by the Apex Court against Punjab.

In 2004, the Punjab legislature also passed the Termination of Agreement Act, by which it sought to nullify its water-sharing agreement with Haryana. However, in 2016, this Act was struck down as unconstitutional. Punjab’s demand to be released from its obligation to finish construction of the river canal was firmly denied, when the matter travelled to the Supreme Court on the back of a presidential reference. A Constitution Bench headed by Justice Anil R. Dave had declared, “The agreement could not have been unilaterally terminated by one of the parties by exercising its legislative power and if any party or any state does so, such unilateral action of a particular state has to be declared contrary to the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956.” A decree passed in 2004 directing the central government to take over the canal works from the recalcitrant state was also reaffirmed.

[Case Title: State of Haryana Department of Irrigation The Secretary v. State of Punjab And Anr. Original Suit No. 6/1996]

Click Here To Read/Download Order