SYL canal row: SC asks Haryana, Punjab to maintain law & order

Says ruling on link canal must be honoured; INLD urges workers to march into Punjab to start digging

The Supreme Court today made it clear that its verdict allowing construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna link (SYL) canal has to be executed and asked Haryana and Punjab to maintain law and order "at any cost" in view of a proposed protest by a political outfit tomorrow over the inter-state water row.

Indian National Lok Dal (INLD), Haryana's main opposition party, has asked its workers to gather tomorrow at Ambala and march inside Punjab to start digging the SYL canal.

"Haryana and Punjab shall maintain law and order at any cost. State of Punjab and Haryana will take action under the law...The law and order should not be violated in any manner," a bench of Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy said.

After taking note of submissions of senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Haryana, the bench said that the decree and orders passed by the apex court, allowing the SYL canal, have to be executed and the canal has to be built.

The bench, however, referred to the submissions of senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, representing Punjab, that "good people" from both sides should sit together and find an amicable solution to the issue and said this was one of the possibilities.

It told Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre, that the central government could act as an arbitrator if both sides are willing to settle.

However, the legal aspect is that "the highest court of the land has given its verdicts and how can that be not implemented," the bench said.

The court said its earlier interim order of status quo will continue till further orders and fixed the case for further hearing on March 2, while again rejecting Punjab's submission that the case be listed after the poll results.

Punjab, in its affidavit, has maintained that the Punjab Termination of Water Agreement Act of 2004 was still in force and discharges it of all responsibility to provide water to other states.

It claimed that the SC verdict that the 2004 Act was unconstitutional did not render the law invalid as the apex court had only given an opinion on the Presidential reference.

During the hearing, Haryana's counsel Divan referred to various orders and judgements passed by the Supreme Court from time to time and said the decisions should reach to the "logical conclusion" which is construction of the canal.

The apex court has categorically said the canal has to be constructed by a central agency and the November 10, 2016 constitution bench verdict has said that the Punjab Act, terminating the water agreement, was unconstitutional.

Jethmalani said the dispute at hand cannot be decided by the court as the 1981 water agreement was not enforceable as the quantity of water has dipped and "good people from both sides should sit together and find an amicable solution".

The Centre should act as an arbitrator in the matter and help both sides in finding a solution, he said.

Rejecting the plea for adjournment of hearing after the declaration of assembly polls results, the bench said, "we want to finish it off. If we wait till the results, then you will say that let the government be formed".

Earlier too on February 15, the apex court had rejected a similar plea of Punjab saying "what is the use of courts waiting for election results."

It had said that the decrees passed in the SYL canal dispute between Punjab and Haryana cannot be flouted and directed both states to strictly implement its orders.

On November 30 last year, the court had directed maintenance of status quo on SYL canal and appointed Union Home Secretary, Chief Secretary of Punjab and the Punjab DGP as court receivers of the lands, works, property and portions of the canal. It had asked them to file a report with regard to the ground situation of the property.

The court had then also thwarted Punjab's attempt to wriggle out of SYL water sharing pact, saying it cannot "unilaterally" terminate it or legislate to "nullify" the verdict of the highest court.

The court had issued notice to Punjab on Haryana's plea seeking enforcement of the apex court verdicts and appointment of the receivers to ensure that the project land in Punjab remained intact.

The controversial 1981 water-sharing agreement came into being after Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966.

For effective allocation of water, the SYL canal link was conceptualised and both the states were required to construct their portions within their territories.

Haryana constructed the portion of SYL canal in its territory. However, Punjab after initial work, stopped the work, leading to spate of litigations.

In 2004, the Congress government of the state came out with the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act with an intention to terminate the 1981 agreement and all other pacts relating to sharing of waters of rivers Ravi and Beas.

The apex court had first decreed the suit of Haryana in 2002 asking Punjab to honour its commitments with regard to water sharing in the case.

Punjab challenged the verdict by filing an original suit which was rejected in 2004 by the Supreme Court which asked the Centre to take over the remaining infrastructural work of the SYL canal project.