M A I N   N E W S

Troubled waters: Haryana moves SC for early decision
S.S. Negi
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, March 9
In the wake of Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal’s statement that he would further curtail the river water supply to the neighbouring states by scrapping Section 5 of the Punjab Termination of Agreement (PTA) Act, the Haryana Government today urged the Supreme Court to expedite hearing on the presidential reference on the validity of the legislation passed by the previous Amarinder Singh government.

Appearing for the Haryana Government before a Bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan referred to the March 3 statement of Badal at a press conference and urged the court to give verdict early on the presidential reference on the Act that abrogated all water-sharing agreements entered into by Punjab with neighbouring states after 1981.

The Section 5 of the Act, however, provided that the river water supply level as existed on the date of the passing of the legislation would be maintained. But Badal’s statement that “I will scrap Section 5 of the Act”, has been taken by Haryana as a serious threat to its interests.

Scrapping of Section 5 would give absolute right to Punjab to decide as to how much supply of river waters be maintained to the neighbouring states of Haryana and Rajasthan. Badal had claimed that as a riparian state, Punjab had the right to do so.

Shanti Bhushan told the Bench that the Presidential reference needed to be heard early in the wake of the new development. The court eventually posted the matter for further hearing on March 28.

Senior advocate Rajiv Dhawan, who appeared for the Punjab Government, tried to downplay the statement of Badal saying he might have made it in the process of elections.

Soon after the Amarinder Singh government passed the PTA Act on July 12, 2004, the UPA government had made a four-point Presidential reference to the apex court seeking its opinion whether a state had a constitutional right to “unilaterally” scrap the agreements with other states.

The Amarinder Singh government had passed the Act in view of the Supreme Court’s verdict, directing the Centre to construct the unfinished portion of the controversial SYL in the territory of Punjab after the state had expressed its inability to execute the work.

The presidential reference had sought Supreme Court’s opinion on: (a) whether the PTA Act and its provisions were in accordance with the Constitution; (b) whether its provisions were as per Section 14 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, and notification of March 24, 1976, issued thereunder; (c) whether Punjab had validly terminated the December 31, 1981, agreement and all other agreements relating to the Ravi-Beas waters with neighbouring states and is discharged of its obligation under those provisions and (d) whether Punjab was discharged under the Termination Act of its obligation flowing from the January 15, 2002, and June 4, 2004, judgements of the apex court about construction of the SYL.

In the January, 2002, judgement, the Supreme Court had decreed Haryana’s suit against Punjab directing it to complete the SYL in its territory within one year and Badal, who was also Chief Minister at that time, had refused to implement the order and even said that he was ready to go to the jail instead.

Subsequently, the Badal government filed a counter-suit in the apex court for discharging the state of the obligation to implement the apex court order. Haryana moved a petition for enforcing the decree against Punjab and if it was not ready to execute the order, it demanded the implementation of the second part of the verdict that provided for completion of the SYL by the Centre.

The apex court had directed the Centre to complete the unfinished SYL by its agencies in the territory of Punjab under the protection of security forces. This prompted the Amarinder government to pass the PTA Act.