'High-Handedness': Supreme Court Slams Punjab Govt For De-notifying Land Acquired For SYL Canal; Clarifies Status Quo Order
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...
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."
When the senior counsel sought to explain that Haryana was getting water based on its consumption, and the issue pertaining to its entitlement to additional water was before the Water Tribunal, the judge commented, "So according to you, this Court has passed decree without considering everything? You are attributing non-application of mind".
Ultimately, the bench of Justices Gavai and AG Masih directed both the States to cooperate with the Union in arriving at an amicable solution. If the issue is not resolved amicably, the matter would be taken up on 13 August, the Court said.
Notably, the Court also clarified an earlier status quo order passed in the matter. "This Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo. Dispute before the Court is with regard to main SYL canal. Dispute does not pertain to internal network of canal which was to be constructed by Punjab for distribution within Punjab. We therefore clarify that status quo will apply only to land in Punjab required for construction of main SYL canal so as to link it to the canal already constructed by Haryana", it ordered.
Background
The original suit was filed by Haryana against Punjab in 1996, in which a favorable ruling was received by the plaintiff-state in 2002. Despite the top court judgement ordering Punjab to build the SYL canal within a year, and a categorical reiteration of the same stand in 2004, the dispute between the two states continues to this date.
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, and Punjab's demand to be released from its obligation to finish construction of the river canal was 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.
Story to be updated.
Appearance: Senior Advocate Shyam Divan (for Haryana); Sr Adv Gurminder Singh (for Punjab); Senior Advocate PS Patwalia
Case Title: THE STATE OF HARYANA DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION THE SECRETARY Versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. | Original Suit No. 6/1996