Opinion: SYL dispute can be resolved via the Constitution

A recent article by Yogendra Yadav, advocating a “negotiated settlement” on the Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal reveals a troubling trend: the willingness to bypass fundamental constitutional questions in favour of political expediency. The SYL dispute is not merely "difficult" as Yadav suggests-it is built on legally unsound foundations that violate basic constitutional principles.Punjab has remained a victim of intellectual bias. Yadav's article reflects the same bias to a large extent. Punjab has been squeezed to the hilt in various ways and river waters is the main aspect of that squeeze.The then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi misused his authority to undermine the Constitution, favouring Haryana. The Rajiv-Longowal Accord of July 24, 1985, was constitutionally invalid since its inception because one party (Longowal) lacked the constitutional capacity to enter into the agreement.To give this accord a legal facade, Section 14 was added to the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. Mere insertion of Section 14, mentioning the Ravi-Beas system, wouldn’t turn these into inter-state rivers.At the heart of this dispute lies the 1985 accord, which has been treated as a gospel by governments and tribunals. Under our constitutional scheme, only those holding specified constitutional offices can make binding commitments on behalf of a state. A private citizen, regardless of his/her moral authority or political influence, cannot sign away a state's sovereign rights over its natural resources. This is not a mere technicality.The Constitution establishes clear lines of authority precisely to prevent arbitrary decisions affecting state sovereignty. The accord, whatever its political significance, cannot override constitutional requirements for valid state agreements.The constitutional infirmity of the accord has cascading consequences. Section 14 of the 1956 Act, which was added specifically to implement the accord, necessarily inherits this constitutional defect. If the pact lacked constitutional validity, how can a legislation based solely on it be constitutionally correct?Section 14 effectively gives statutory recognition to an extra-constitutional agreement made by persons without legal authority. This violates the basic principle that a legislation must have a valid constitutional foundation. Parliament cannot, through legislative sleight of hand, convert an unconstitutional agreement into constitutional law.When states are reorganised, the successor states acquire rights only over rivers that naturally flow through their territories. This principle has been consistently applied across India. When Punjab was reorganised in 1966, it lost its rights over the Yamuna because the river no longer flowed through reorganised Punjab — it flowed through Haryana. This is constitutionally logical and legally sound. By the same principle, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Delhi — being non-riparian to the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej after reorganisation — have no constitutional claim on the waters of these rivers. The rivers do not flow through these states.One cannot accept the loss of Punjab's rights over the Yamuna while simultaneously demanding Punjab to share rivers that don't flow through other states. Constitutional principles cannot be applied selectively based on political convenience.The constitutional inconsistency becomes even starker when we examine precedent. Rajasthan, as a non-riparian state to the Narmada river, was not entertained when it sought allocation from the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal. The tribunal correctly held that non-riparian states have no constitutional standing to claim river waters. Yet under the same Constitution, Rajasthan is not only entertained by the Ravi-Beas Tribunal but has been allocated 8.6 MAF, a substantial water share.Further, in spite of the alarming situation of ground water depletion in Punjab, the neighbouring non-riparian states have been given 19 MAF (about 70%) of river water out of the available 28.5 MAF. How can the Constitution operate differently for different states on identical principles? It demonstrates that Punjab's rights have been sacrificed not on legal grounds but on considerations of political power and convenience.Even if one were to accept the accord’s validity, which Punjab does not acquiesce in — the Centre has itself dishonoured it. The accord stipulated that Chandigarh would be transferred to Punjab by January 26, 1986. Four decades later, this has not been done. If the Centre can pick and choose which parts of the accord to implement and which to leave out, on what basis can it demand that Punjab honour provisions regarding water-sharing? The pact was a package deal. Selective implementation by the Centre nullifies any moral or legal obligation on Punjab’s part.The constitutional scheme is clear: States have primary jurisdiction over water within their territories, subject to the Union’s role in resolving disputes over rivers that flow through multiple states. Rivers that do not flow through a state cannot be deemed “inter-state” rivers concerning that state.Sections 78-79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which allocate Punjab's waters to non-riparian states, exceed Parliament's powers under Article 3. Parliament cannot reallocate natural resources from riparian to non-riparian states in violation of Entry 17 of the State List and basic federal principles.Yadav and others advocating “negotiated settlements” put the cart before the horse. Before Punjab can be asked to negotiate away its rights, the constitutional validity of those claims against it must be established.Yadav should answer some of these questions of law: Can non-riparian states claim riparian waters? Did Parliament have the authority to allocate Punjab’s river water to non-riparian states during the state's reorganisation?Did the addition of Section 14 added to the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, fundamentally destroy the basic structure of the Constitution when applied selectively to Punjab’s rivers? Did the executive decision taken by the Central government vide a note of January 29, 1955, to allocate 60 per cent of Ravi-Beas waters to neighbouring states violate the Constitution?Why Punjab is not being paid the cost of water for the Gang Canal in spite of the prevailing historic agreement with Maharaja Ganga Singh, ex-ruler of Bikaner State? Why Punjab is not being paid the cost of water drawn through Indira Gandhi Canal vide clause 5 of the 1955 government note (termed as “Deemed Agreement”) later?These are not political questions amenable to compromise. They are constitutional questions requiring judicial determination. No amount of political pressure can substitute constitutional legitimacy. Punjab cannot be asked to surrender its constitutional rights and natural resources based on legally dubious claims.The SYL dispute amounts to constitutional infringement. Until it is judicially exposed and constitutionally rectified, no solution that requires Punjab to surrender its rights can be legitimate. Punjab needs constitutional justice first. Its denial keeps Punjab's wounds fresh and festering.

Opinion: SYL dispute can be resolved via the Constitution

Punjab needs constitutional justice. Its denial keeps the state’s wounds fresh and festering.

ss boparai

Opinion: SYL dispute can be resolved via the Constitution

Punjab needs constitutional justice. Its denial keeps the state’s wounds fresh and festering.

ss boparai

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article