BBMB row: HC finds prima facie case of contempt against Punjab

Just about three days after Punjab was directed not to interfere in the functioning of Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) and abide by a decision taken in a meeting in the matter, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today said a prima facie a case of contempt was made out against the state for not complying with its directions. The bench also made it clear that the notice would be issued to the state Chief Secretary and DGP.

The bench, at the same time, made it clear that it would hold its hand till Monday if Punjab assured compliance with the order. A detailed order in this regard is expected to be released by the court later in the evening.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel asserted that judicial directions, whether right or wrong, were binding until stayed or set aside. The court also noted that there appeared to be “some element of contempt” and that a reply was required.

“We are not sending your officers to jail; we are only issuing notice,” the bench said, while taking note of senior advocate Gurminder Singh’s submissions on behalf of the state of Punjab. The bench was categorical that its directions issued on May 6 were required to be implemented and that the state was expected to challenge the order if it had objections, not bypass or ignore it.

Justifying the state’s actions in the matter, Gurminder Singh contended that the high court had on May 6 directed the state to abide by the decision of a meeting held on May 2 under the chairmanship of the Home Secretary to the Government of India. The bench was given the impression that release 4,500 cusecs of extra water to Haryana over a period of eight days to meet its urgent requirement was decided during the meeting, but that was not the case.

Going into the background of the matter, he said Haryana had on April 29 sought a reference to the Central Government regarding the release of additional water. It was required to be decided by the Centre, with the Power Secretary being the competent authority. He added that the May 2 meeting – referred to earlier by the bench in its order – dealt with law and order issues and had no bearing on water allotment. He also maintained that BBMB could not have been asked to resolve the issue, which lay within the Union Government’s domain, and that no decision had yet been taken by the Centre. He further submitted that Punjab or its officials had not impeded BBMB’s day-to-day functioning in any manner.

Appearing for the Union of India, Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain with senior counsel Dheeraj Jain said the release of extra water was, indeed, discussed in the May 2 meeting referenced in the earlier order and reflected in a press note issued the same day.

After hearing rival contentions, the bench noted that even the BBMB chairman had categorically stated he was not allowed to enter the installation and that the public had locked the gates — an action described by the bench as “unbelievable”.

The bench observed that restraining the chairman from entering the installation amounted to interfering with BBMB’s functioning. It held that such actions pointed to a prima facie violation of the May 6 directions, warranting issuance of a contempt notice.

In an attempt to highlighting how state functionaries appeared to have facilitated political optics while obstructing the officer from carrying out his statutory duties, senior advocate Rajesh Garg – among other things – pointed out that the chairman was “smoked out” on the pretext of being escorted on Wednesday after a mob gathered. On the other hand, the chief minister went there and held a press conference.

The matter was brought to the high court’s notice during the hearing of an application in an ongoing case filed by a gram panchayat through counsel R Kartikeya and Ridhi Bansal.