A major confrontation between the Supreme Court and Punjab government also appeared a distinct possibility with the state's SAD-BJP government asserting it would appeal to the President not to accept the advice of the apex court.
Addressing a press conference after a hurriedly called meeting of the state's council of ministers, Badal, with son and deputy Sukhbir by his side, declared "not a single drop of water will be allowed to be taken out of the state...Water comes first for us."
Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court, while disposing of the Presidential reference said,"All the questions have been answered in the negative".
The reference had been made by the then President A P J Abdul Kalam on the constitutional validity of the law passed by then Punjab government-led by Captain Amrinder Singh to nullify the court verdict and unilaterally terminating the almost three-dacade old SYL water sharing agreement.
In its judgement, a five-judge bench headed by Justice A R Dave made it clear that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 was "unconstitutional" and that Punjab could not have taken a "unilateral" decision to terminate the water sharing agreement with Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi and Chandigarh.
Amarinder, under whom the controversial law had been
enacted to abrogate the agreement, said he had sent his resignation to the Lok Sabha Speaker and sought an appointment with her next week. For the resignation of an MP or MLA to be accepted, they have to submit their letters to the Speaker personally.
The Congress leader accused the Akalis of being instrumental in acquiring the land for the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal, ignoring the interest of Punjab.
Amarinder said, "Badal issued the notification for land acquisition for the SYL on February 20, 1978 vide notification nos: 113/5/SYL and 121/5/SYL under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. With this, the process of land acquisition started.
Sukhbir Badal hit back, saying the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had forced Congress Chief Minister Darbara Singh to sign the agreement.
"It is a well known fact that PPCC President Capt Amarinder Singh welcomed the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1982 to lay the foundation of SYL canal at Kapoori. It was Akali Dal government which stopped it and did not allow water to be taken out of the state.
Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar, whose state hopes to gain from the SC ruling, meanwhile, urged the political parties to respect the apex court's ruling and not politicise it.
With his party BJP's ally Shiromani Akali Dal strongly opposing the SC ruling, Khattar said,"Punjab government is not bigger than the Supreme Court, which has given its advice. Now the President will decide on it. I hope that the decision is amicably implemented immediately."
On the assertion by the Badals that not a single drop of water will be allowed to be taken outside the state, Khattar said,"It is a multi-state agreement. Ours is a federal democracy and it should be respected."
"The Badal government could have forced the Centre to
withdraw the notification issued by the then Central government in 1976 which stated that SYL be constructed to give water to Haryana," Phoolka said.
He also described Amarinder Singh's resignation from Lok Sabha as "mere drama". Apart from Amarinder, Congress has two other Lok Sabha MPs from Punjab.
Congress, which is trying to stage a comeback to power in Punjab after nearly a decade, however, appeared divided on the issue of SC verdict.
While on one hand Amarinder made a strident pitch against SC order, Congress's chief spokesman Randeep Surjewala, a Haryanavi, said," Justice has won in the Supreme Court. The two and a half crore people of Haryana should now have closure."
"All the three governments -- Central Government, Punjab Government and Haryana Government, belong to BJP. Onus is on Modi ji to fulfil the solemn responsibility to the Constitution, implement the law and enforce the orders of the Supreme Court," Surjewala said.
Another Congress spokesperson Tom Vadakkan said the party would come out with an apropriate reaction soon after details of the verdict are available.
"We are dealing with two states, in which the BJP plays a prominent role. We would expect the Prime Minister to have an interface with both sides and find solutions. So the ball is in the court of the Prime Minister.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
