DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

HC warns against treating states like enemy countries in BBMB dispute

The bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel was hearing a plea filed by BBMB against the deployment of additional police personnel at the Nangal dam and the alleged impediment in the flow of 8,500 cusecs of water to Haryana
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

"We are doing this to our enemy country. Let us not do this within our states," the Punjab and Haryana High Court asserted this afternoon before the state of Punjab undertook before the bench that its police would not interfere in the functioning of Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB).

The bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel was hearing a plea filed by BBMB against the deployment of additional police personnel at the Nangal dam and the alleged impediment in the flow of 8,500 cusecs of water to Haryana. Among other things, the bench observed logically and ideally central paramilitary police force were required be deployed at institutes of national importance.

At the onset, BBMB counsel and senior advocate Rajesh Garg submitted: “The reservoir is going to overflow and the downstream states are going to go dry.” He contended that the sudden increase in the deployment of Punjab Police personnel at the dam—from 15 to 55—indicated an attempt to block the flow of water.

Advertisement

Responding to the submissions, senior advocate and former Advocate-General Gurminder Singh insisted that law and order fell within the exclusive domain of the state. “Law and order is the state subject. BBMB cannot say what police should do or police would be deployed. They want illegal resolutions implemented,” he argued, urging the court to consider “such a delicate time when border tensions are there.”

Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain, on the other hand Jain, submitted: “The water is not out of share of Punjab. For me all states are equal. Water comes from Himachal. What happens tomorrow if they stop? This is not in good spirit.” He submitted that the BBMB resolution permitting the release was not challenged, and any grievance ought to be taken up legally, not through unilateral administrative actions.

Advertisement

The bench was told that BBMB, a statutory expert body, had resolved to release 8,500 cusecs after a demand raised by Haryana. Advocate-General Parminder Singh Chauhan submitted on the state of Haryana’s behalf that Punjab was opposing water distribution “tooth and nail,” and said that “under the garb of protecting the dam, what are they doing? This is not their job.” He clarified that the sanctioned release included 1,049 cusecs for Delhi and 850 for Rajasthan, apart from Haryana’s share.

Chauhan added the objections, if any, should be addressed through proper channels before the Central Government and not through actions such as deployment of state police. “Punjab has objected but decision has been made. Punjab can approach the Central Government,” he said. The court has disposed of the matter but the order is pending release.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper