Clear case of high-handedness: Supreme Court slams Punjab for opposing Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took exception to the Punjab government for its "high-handedness" in refusing to comply with the court order for construction of Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal to resolve its water-sharing dispute with the neighboring Haryana. .The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih directed Punjab and Haryana governments to cooperate with Union of India for amicable settlement of the water-sharing issue. The Court added that otherwise it will take up the matter on August 13. "Was it not the act of high handedness that once the decree was passed for construction of the canal, the land was denotified which was acquired for the construction of canal? ... This is trying to defeat the decree of the Court. This is a clear case of highhandedness. It should have helped three states. Land was acquired for the project and you denotified that," Justice Gavai remarked. .Background.The Court was hearing the 1996 original suit filed by Haryana against Punjab in relation to the SYL canal dispute. The case itself dates back to 1981 when the States of Punjab, Rajasthan and Haryana had entered into a water sharing agreement. This agreement also provided that the SYL canal would be completed within 2 years. However, violence surrounding the construction of the SYL canal led to Punjab halting the construction.The top court in 2002 directed the Punjab government to construct the canal for sharing of river water with Haryana Punjab then enacted the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 terminating and discharging the Government of Punjab from its obligations under the 1981 agreement.The President of India then referred the matter to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion. In November 2016, the Supreme Court rendered its opinion holding that Punjab cannot unilaterally terminate the water sharing agreement. It also opined that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 was unconstitutional.However, Punjab government is yet to comply with the 2002 decree and the issue till date has remained pending before different forums..Hearing today.Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh appearing for the Punjab government today argued that the proposal to construct had led to unrest in Punjab. He said it was an emotive issue in the border State."This has become very emotive issue with the public, it is not government's thing. Punjab, being a border state, could not afford this unrest on this issue. Therefore, whatever the measures the government of that time had taken, have been adjudicated. It is not as simplistic as Haryana is trying to put," he said.Singh added that it needs to be examined whether the decree can and should be executed at the cost of unrest or alternative measures to satisfy Punjab's need can be found..However, the Court said Haryana had already constructed its part of the canal. "They (Haryana) discharged their duty and constructed 100 km canal.. but you Punjab did not construct the 90 km you had to," it remarked.The Court also asked whether Punjab was arguing that the decree was passed without considering anything. "In a way you are attributing non-application of mind," it added..Senior Advocate Shyam Divan for Haryana government said efforts have been made for years and years to resolve the issue but now "one party" has taken law in its own hands."It is resulting into a huge problem. Imagine taking control over the works of common Nangal dam and that body [Bhakra Beas Management Board] had to go and file a petition in the Court," he added, while referring to a fresh dispute between the two states over water sharing.He also questioned how Punjab government can unilaterally suspend the decree of 2022. "If original decree of Supreme Court is not given the weight it deserves, then what. It is a 2002 decree and it cannot be suspended unilaterally.".Meanwhile, on an application moved by certain lands owners, the top court today clarified that the status quo order passed by it earlier would remain limited to the land required for construction of the main SYL canal to link it to the part constructed by Haryana. .Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh represented State of Punjab.Senior Advocate Shyam Divan with Senior Additional Advocate General Lokesh Sinhal appeared for the State of Haryana.Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati represented the Union government. Senior Advocate PS Patwalia represented the intervenors (land owners).