SYL canal dispute can’t be decided on law alone without considering ground realities: SC

As the vexed Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal dispute between Punjab and Haryana defied any solution for decades, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said the issue can’t be decided on the basis of law alone and that ground realities have to be taken into account to resolve the issue.

“These matters cannot be decided only on (the basis of) law. Other factors have to be taken into consideration. It’s not like a paper decree between two brothers that half of the land has to be allotted to each of them… It’s not a plain thing that 10-acre land belongs to your father and a five-acre partition has to be done... The ground realities… what was the situation in Punjab for the last so many years…,” a Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih said.

Senior counsel Shyam Divan, representing Haryana Government, however, asserted that the top court’s 2002 decree requiring the State of Punjab to construct its part of SYL Canal has to be implemented. “If you want to have a strong federation…people have to obey the orders of the court. You can’t have a situation where after the decree states unilaterally overturn the decree…Everybody has to work towards implementing the decree... otherwise it sends a very wrong message.”

The Bench took exception to the Punjab Government’s “highhandedness” in refusing to implement the top court’s order to construct its part of SYL Canal and de-notifying the land acquired for the purpose.

“They (Haryana) discharged their duty and constructed a 100 km canal.. but you Punjab did not construct the 90 km you had to,” it noted.

“Was it not the act of highhandedness that once the decree was passed for construction of the canal, the land was de-notified which was acquired for the construction of the canal? ... This is trying to defeat the decree of the Court. This is a clear case of highhandedness. It should have helped three states. Land was acquired for the project and you de-notified that,” Justice Gavai told senior advocate Gurminder Singh.

Noting that the decree should not be executed at the cost of an unrest in the border state of Punjab where it has become an emotive issue, Gurminder Singh said alternative measures needed to be explored.

“This has become a very emotive issue with the public, it is not the government’s thing. Punjab, being a border state, could not afford this unrest on this issue. Therefore, whatever the measures the government of that time had taken, have been adjudicated. It is not as simplistic as Haryana is trying to put,” he told the Bench.

Divan urged the Bench to decide the matter, saying efforts to resolve the issue through mediation have failed and Punjab has taken the law into its own hands.

As senior advocate PS Patwalia told the Bench that an application has been filed by certain land owners, the Bench clarified that its earlier order for status quo would remain limited to the land required for construction of the main SYL Canal to link it to the part already constructed by Haryana.

At the end of the hearing, the Bench directed the governments of Punjab and Haryana to cooperate with the Centre in reaching an amicable solution to the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal dispute.

The Bench was informed by the Centre that it has already taken effective steps to resolve the issue amicably. “We direct both the states to cooperate with the Union of India in arriving at an amicable solution,” it said.

The Bench said it would hear the matter on August 13, if the dispute isn’t resolved by then.

“We have made efforts for mediation, but the states have to walk the talk,” Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, told the Bench.

At the root of the problem is the 1981 water-sharing agreement after Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966. For effective allocation of water, the SYL canal was to be constructed and the two states were required to construct their portions within their territories. While Haryana constructed its portion of the canal, after the initial phase, Punjab stopped the work, leading to multiple cases.

In 2002, the top court decreed Haryana’s suit and ordered Punjab to honour its commitments on water-sharing.

However, the Punjab Assembly passed the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act in 2004 to terminate the 1981 agreement and all other pacts on sharing waters of the Ravi and the Beas.

Punjab filed an original suit that was rejected in 2004 by the Supreme Court which asked the Centre to take over the remaining infrastructure work of the SYL canal project.

In November 2016, the top court declared the law passed by the Punjab Assembly in 2004 terminating the SYL canal water-sharing agreement with neighbouring states unconstitutional. In early 2017, Punjab returned land—on which the canal was to be constructed—to the landowners.

Maintaining that a negotiated settlement of SYL Canal dispute can’t be reached, the Haryana Government has been requesting the Supreme Court to ask the Punjab Government to implement its order to complete the construction of the canal.

Haryana contended that it cannot be made to wait long for construction of the canal. Any further delay in execution of the top court’s 2002 decree will erode people’s faith in the judicial system. But Punjab argued the decree was premised on the fact that there was enough water in the river and now that there was not much water flow, it was impossible to execute the decree.