Sutlej-Yamuna Canal Dispute : Haryana Govt Tells Supreme Court That Bilateral Talks With Punjab Have Failed

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the state of Haryana said, “Unfortunately, the situation is that there has not been any progress. Pursuant to this court’s order in September, two meetings have been held in October and in January. Chief ministers of Punjab as well as Haryana were present. Minister of Jal Shakti was presiding, just as the court had indicated. Over the last five years, a total of nine meetings have been held.” He added, “This is a case where there is a suit, a decree, directions passed in execution, subsequent rounds, state legislation, presidential reference, a judgement of this court sitting in a Constitution Bench, and further proceedings.” The senior counsel, citing the breakdown of diplomatic talks, urged the court to “consider what further directions may need to be issued to bring it to a closure”, making a case for judicial intervention in the form of orders.

The court agreed to consider Divan’s proposal at the next hearing on March 15, since an adjournment was requested on behalf of the Union of India.

A three-judge bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, and B.V. Nagarathna was hearing an original suit filed by Haryana against Punjab in 1996, in which a favourable ruling was received by the plaintiff-state in 2002. Despite the apex 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 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 v. State of Punjab | Original Suit No. 6 of 1996

Click Here To Read/Download Order