Explainer: Why Nayab Saini wants a final decision on Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal’s 1987 report?

The three-member tribunal, consisting of retired judges Vineet Saran, P Naveen Rao and Suman Shyam, were in Punjab last week to examine the water-sharing infrastructure of the Ravi-Beas water system, in keeping with the 1985 Rajiv-Longowal accord. They returned to Delhi on Friday. In their time in Punjab, they visited Pong dam, Ranjitsagar dam, Bhakra and Nangal dams and the Ropar headworks.

Haryana Chief Minister Naya Singh Saini said it was time that the tribunal took a decision based on the 1987 report, as 38 long years had already passed, so that Haryana could receive its rightful share of water without further delay.

Here is a short explainer on the story so far:

Q.1 How was Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal formed?

The setting up of the Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal has its genesis in ‘The Punjab Settlement’, also known as the Rajiv-Longowal Accord. It was signed between the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and the then Punjab CM Harchand Singh Longowal on July 24, 1985. Less than a month after signing the accord, Longowal was assassinated on August 20, 1985.

Paragraph 9 of the accord deals with sharing of river waters. Paragraph 9.1 says, “The farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan will continue to get water not less than what they are using from the Ravi-Beas system as on July 1, 1985. Waters used for consumptive purposes will also remain unaffected.” It added that the quantum of usage would be verified by the tribunal referred to in Paragraph 9.2.

Paragraph 9.2 says that “the claim of Punjab and Haryana regarding the shares in their remaining waters (of Ravi and Beas) will be referred for adjudication to a tribunal to be presided over by a Supreme Court judge. The decision of this tribunal will be rendered within six months and would be binding on both parties.”

Paragraph 9.3 says, “The construction of SYL Canal shall continue. The canal shall be completed by August 15, 1986.”

However, neither the final decision of the Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal came nor the SYL was completed.

On April 2, 1986, a notification was issued for setting up the Ravi-Beas Waters Tribunal under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, for the adjudication of the matters referred to in Paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2, respectively, of the Punjab Settlement. Justice V Balakrishna Eradi, a judge of the Supreme Court, was appointed as the chairman, while Justice AM Ahmadi, a judge of the Gujarat High Court, and Justice PC Balakrishna Menon, a judge of the Kerala High Court, were the members. The headquarters of the tribunal was at New Delhi and the first sitting was held on April 10, 1986.

Q.2 What are the conclusions of the Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal’s 1987 report?

The report was submitted on January 30, 1987. Regarding the quantum of water used by the farmers and other consumptive users of the three party states as of July 1, 1985, the tribunal found that Punjab was using 3.106 MAF, while Haryana and Rajasthan were using 1.620 MAF and 4.985 MAF, respectively.

On the division of waters between Punjab and Haryana, the tribunal decided 5 MAF for Punjab and 3.83 MAF for Haryana.

“We direct that in the event of fluctuations in the availability of water in the Ravi-Beas system in any particular year, the shares of the aforesaid two states shall be increased or decreased pro-rata on the above basis,” said the tribunal’s report.

It added, “The shares of Rajasthan in the surplus waters fixed at 8.60 MAF and that of Delhi Water Supply fixed at 0.2 MAF under the 1981 agreement shall remain unaffected.” The demand of Delhi Administration for the allocation of additional supply over the existing use of 0.2 MAF was rejected.

Q.3 Did the tribunal comment on SYL?

Though the Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal was not part of the issues referred to the tribunal, Paragraph 9.3 of “The Punjab Settlement” envisioned it to be completed by August 15, 1986.

The tribunal commented in the report, “We are informed that the canal is complete in the Haryana area and it is under construction in the Punjab area. This canal is the lifeline for the farmers of Haryana, and unless it is expeditiously completed, Haryana will not be in a position to utilise the full quantum of water allocated to it hereunder. It is, therefore, necessary that all concerned should make a concerted effort to see that the construction of the canal is completed at an early date without loss of further time.”

Q.4 How did the tribunal arrive at the calculations of dividing the waters between Punjab and Haryana?

The tribunal considered geographical areas, Indus basin areas, cultivable areas, water requirements, population as per Census 1981, population density, Cultural Command Area (CCA) of canal systems, arid areas, and rainfall of both Punjab and Haryana before dividing the waters.

Besides, the tribunal noted two aspects. First, “Haryana was not receiving and utilising the full quantum of water allocated to it under the 1976 award and the 1981 agreement because of the non-completion of SYL Canal; otherwise, the picture would have been different, particularly in regard to the extension of irrigation in its southern region and drought-prone areas.” Second, “Haryana is receiving 3.68 MAF of Yamuna waters which is likely to go up by another 0.5 MAF, while Punjab has no other source except Ravi-Beas waters.”

The tribunal relied on surplus available supplies calculated on the 1921-60 series totalling 7.72 MAF plus 1.11 MAF, flow below rim stations, for division between Punjab and Haryana.

Q.5 What were the arguments of Punjab and Haryana?

Punjab contended that neither Haryana nor Rajasthan could claim a share in the remaining or surplus waters as they are non-riparian states and do not fall within the valleys or basins of the Ravi and the Beas. However, the tribunal rejected the Punjab’s theory of ownership of rivers as “it cannot be supported in law and/or under the Constitution”.

Haryana contended that it lies in the Indus Basin and the rivers, the Ravi and the Beas form part of the Indus system. It added that as the waters of the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) were acquired by India on payment of a substantial amount to Pakistan (Pound Sterling 62.06 million equivalent to Rs 110 crores), “Haryana’s right to a share in the Ravi-Beas waters was indisputable.”

Q.6 What is the present situation regarding the Ravi-Beas waters dispute?

The tribunal gave its report on January 30, 1987. It was forwarded to the states on May 20, 1987. Under Section 5(3) of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, references of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan and Centre seeking some explanations on the report were forwarded to the tribunal on August 19, 1987, and are since under their consideration.

The Punjab Legislative Assembly had on July 12, 2004, enacted the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 (PTAA). The Act terminated all agreements relating to the Ravi-Beas waters, including the agreement dated December 31, 1981, signed by the chief ministers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan and fully discharged Punjab of any obligation arising from the agreements. The Act provided that all existing and actual utilisations through the existing systems shall remain protected and unaffected.

A Presidential Reference regarding the PTAA was made on July 22, 2004, under Article 143 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court on November 10, 2016, has opined in its advisory jurisdiction that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, cannot be said to be following the provisions of the Constitution of India.

Currently, the tribunal gets the extensions on a yearly basis.