The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the governments of Punjab and Haryana to cooperate with the Centre in finding an amicable resolution to the long-standing dispute over the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih criticised Punjab’s move to de-notify land already acquired for the canal, calling it an "act of high-handedness." The apex court emphasised that while legal considerations are important, ground realities and broader ramifications must also be taken into account.
The court referred to a recent affidavit by the Centre, indicating that efforts had been made to mediate the dispute. "In that view of the matter, we direct both the states to cooperate with the Union of India in arriving at an amicable solution. In case the issue is not resolved amicably between the parties, we propose to take up the matter on August 13," the bench said.
Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the court that meetings were held as part of the mediation efforts. “We have made efforts for mediation, but the states have to walk the talk,” she noted.
The SYL canal was originally planned to ensure equitable water sharing between the two states from the Ravi and Beas rivers. Of the 214-kilometre-long proposed canal, 122 km was to be built in Punjab and 92 km in Haryana. While Haryana completed its share of the project, Punjab, which began construction in 1982, later abandoned the work.
In a 2002 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld Haryana’s plea and directed the Punjab government to complete its portion of the canal. On Tuesday, senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing Haryana, urged enforcement of the court’s earlier decree.
"These matters can't be decided only on law. We also have to take into consideration other factors. It is not like a paper decree between two brothers that half of the land is to be allotted to one and half of the land is to be allotted to the other," the bench observed.
The top court went on, "There are wider ramifications. We can't ignore the ground realities." The bench was informed that lands acquired for construction of canal in Punjab were de-notified.
"Was it not an act of high-handedness that once a decree was passed for construction of the canal, they are de-notifying the land which is acquired for the purpose of construction of the canal?" the bench asked the Punjab's counsel.
"This is trying to defeat the decree of the court. It is a clear case of high-handedness," it added.
Based on the decree passed by the apex court, the bench noted, Haryana discharged its obligation and constructed the part of canal whereas Punjab for some reason or the other was avoiding to discharge its obligation.
Punjab's counsel said the issue over the canal's construction previously led to unrest in the border state, turning into a "very emotional issue" with the public.
Divan, on the other hand, insisted on abiding by court's orders.
The bench also dealt with an application filed by some land owners seeking clarification of a top court order asking parties to maintain status quo.
"The perusal of the material placed on record would clarify that issue before the court is with regard to the main SYL canal. The dispute does not pertain to internal network of canal which was to be constructed by the state of Punjab for distribution of water within Punjab," the bench said.
The status quo order, it said, would apply only to the land required for construction of SYL canal in Punjab to link it to the canal already constructed by Haryana.
In October 2023, the apex court asked the Centre to actively pursue the mediation process to resolve the dispute and passed several orders in the matter, including a verdict by a five-judge constitution bench that said Punjab ought to comply with its verdict and held as unconstitutional the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act (PTAA), 2004.
The Constitution bench pronounced the verdict on a 2004 Presidential reference.
The PTAA discharged the government of Punjab from its obligations under all agreements related to the waters of Ravi and Beas rivers.
A Presidential reference was made on July 22, 2004 seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court on the constitutional validity of PTAA.
Follow us
