Supreme Court Criticizes Punjab for Non-Compliance on Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal

Supreme Court's Stance on Punjab's Actions

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the Punjab government's refusal to comply with a directive to build the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal, which is crucial for resolving the ongoing water-sharing conflict with Haryana.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih instructed both Punjab and Haryana to work collaboratively with the Centre to find a peaceful resolution to the dispute.

If the state governments and the Centre fail to reach an agreement, the case will be revisited on August 13.

This legal matter traces back to a lawsuit initiated by Haryana against Punjab in 1996 regarding the canal dispute.

In 1981, a water-sharing agreement was established among Punjab, Rajasthan, and Haryana, mandating both Punjab and Haryana to construct their respective sections of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal.

The canal is designed to enable Haryana to access its allocated water from the Ravi and Beas rivers while also distributing water to four other states: Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, and Delhi.

While Haryana completed its section of the canal, Punjab halted construction after initial work due to violent protests.

In 2002, the court mandated Punjab to proceed with the canal's construction.

However, in 2004, Punjab enacted the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, effectively nullifying the 1981 agreement.

The Supreme Court invalidated this law in 2016 and reiterated in 2017 that Punjab must adhere to its order regarding the canal's construction, even suggesting that the Centre could take over the project.

Additionally, the court instructed Punjab to maintain the status quo concerning the land and properties linked to the canal, especially after Punjab attempted to return project land to farmers.

During the recent hearing, the court questioned whether Punjab's actions to de-notify land acquired for the canal constituted high-handedness, emphasizing that such actions undermine the court's decree.

Advocate Gurminder Singh, representing Punjab, argued that the canal's construction had incited unrest in the state, stating that it had become a highly sensitive issue for the public.

He suggested that the feasibility of executing the court's decree should be reconsidered in light of the potential for unrest.

However, the bench pointed out that Haryana had fulfilled its obligations by constructing its 100 km section of the canal, while Punjab had not completed its 90 km segment.

On behalf of Haryana, advocate Shyam Divan raised concerns about Punjab's unilateral suspension of the 2002 ruling, noting that efforts to resolve the issue had been ongoing for years.

Divan highlighted the severity of the situation, likening it to a hypothetical scenario where one party took control of shared resources, such as the Bhakra dam.

He referred to a recent dispute regarding Haryana's request for additional water from the Bhakra Nangal project.

On Monday, the Punjab government passed a resolution in the Legislative Assembly asserting that it would not share any water with Haryana, accusing the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party of attempting to undermine Punjab's rights.

The Bhakra Nangal project consists of two dams on the Sutlej River and is managed by the Bhakra Beas Management Board, which oversees water and power distribution to several states.

Recently, Haryana requested 8,500 cusecs of water from the Bhakra Nangal project, exceeding its current allocation, which Punjab contested, claiming Haryana had already utilized its full annual share.