Fresh BBMB row brews as Centre proposes increasing full-time members from 2 to 4

Another controversy has emerged around the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) just as political heat increased after the Union government recently decided to open the posts of Member (Irrigation) and Member (Power) to officers from states other than Punjab and Haryana.

Even as that move continues to trigger political and administrative reactions, another dispute is now taking shape over a proposal to increase the number of whole-time members on the board and grant permanent representation to Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh.

The latest issue stems from a proposal by the Union Ministry of Power to amend Section 79(2)(a) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, to expand the number of whole-time members in BBMB from two to four.

The proposed amendment seeks to include one member each from Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh, all to be appointed by the Central government.

However, the Punjab government has strongly opposed the move, terming it unnecessary and legally untenable. In an official communication to the Centre, the state has reiterated that BBMB was constituted to manage the rights and liabilities of the successor states following the reorganisation of Punjab in 1966, primarily Punjab and Haryana.

Punjab has argued that Rajasthan does not qualify as a successor state under the Act and is also not a riparian state to the Punjab rivers. Therefore, it has no legitimate claim to permanent membership on the board.

While Rajasthan is a beneficiary of water from the Beas river and contributes to project costs, Punjab maintains that financial contribution alone cannot be the basis for granting decision-making authority.

The state has also maintained that both Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh already participate in BBMB meetings as ex officio members. According to Punjab, granting them full-time membership would only increase administrative expenditure without serving any meaningful purpose.

The state has pointed out that it contributes around 60 per cent of the Bhakra project’s expenses and a substantial share of BBMB’s operational costs. In this context, Punjab has argued that decision-making powers should be aligned with contribution levels rather than diluted by expanding the board.

Further, the state government has questioned the functional necessity of increasing the number of members. It has been maintained that BBMB primarily deals with two domains, power and irrigation, and that the existing two-member structure is sufficient to manage these responsibilities effectively. There is no additional subject area that justifies the creation of more posts, it said.

Punjab has also raised legal concerns, pointing out that the constitutional validity of Sections 78 and 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act is currently under challenge in the Supreme Court through Civil Suit No. 2 of 2007. Given that the matter is sub judice, the state has argued that any amendment to these provisions would be premature and inappropriate.

The communication of the Punjab government to the Union Ministry of Power reveals that the proposal had been examined earlier by both the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Home Affairs.

After consultations with Punjab and Haryana, both ministries had reportedly concluded that no useful purpose would be served by creating additional whole-time member posts in BBMB.

Despite this earlier assessment, the Centre has revived the proposal and sought fresh comments from the concerned states, reopening a sensitive issue that has implications for inter-state water management and governance.

Punjab has urged the Union government to maintain the existing arrangement, under which there are two whole-time members -- one each from Punjab and Haryana -- to refrain from making any amendments to the Act.