Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal; A bone of contention between Punjab and Haryana for over 40 years has the potential to cause law and order problem in the region
Ajay Bhardwaj
The construction of the 214-km long Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, which has been a bone of contention between Punjab and Haryana for the last more than 40 years, is once again in news after the Supreme Court directed that Punjab must allow the project to be completed.
A massive offensive was built last week when hundreds of political activists from Haryana courted arrest on the Punjab-Haryana border in Ambala. Even political leaders, cutting across party lines, reiterated their resolve not to let the canal take shape.
Bolstered by the Supreme Court’s recent observation that Punjab must allow finishing the construction of the SYL canal, Haryana this week
earmarked Rs 100 crore in its annual budget and expressed willingness to shell 10 times more, if required, for the completion of the canal.
Presenting his budgetary proposals for 2017-18, Finance Minister Capt Abhimanyu proposed the outlay for construction of the remaining portion of SYL in Punjab, saying that the government is willing to provide even Rs 1,000 crore, if needed.
“The hearing of the Presidential reference has been decided by the Supreme Court in favour of Haryana”, said the Haryana Finance Minister recalling that Haryana had submitted a memorandum to the President on November 28, 2016, for his personal intervention to ensure early completion of remaining portion of the canal in Punjab and to deliver long pending justice to the people of Haryana.”.
While Punjab conveyed to the court that depleting water flow makes it impossible to build the SYL canal, the Haryana government’s decision is being seen as a symbolic move.
However, the Supreme Court had on November 10, 2016 ruled in favour of the SYL completion.
The Supreme Court has already made it clear that Punjab would have to comply with its order on construction of SYL canal, saying the ongoing controversy over the project must be brought to an end at the earliest.
Holding that Punjab government cannot be allowed to defy its order, a bench of Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy said that it would not accept any excuse of the state
government for not implementing its order. The court said that it would pass order on execution of its decree if
warring states of Punjab and Haryana failed to come to an agreeable solution.
“There are two orders by the court earlier and also a reference on the issue.The canal has to be constructed. The decree has to be executed either through legal process or the parties themselves should sit together and find out a solution. If Haryana and Punjab fail to sort out then we have to pass order,” the bench said.
The controversy has its roots in the 1976 order of the Indira Gandhi government under which the river water share between Punjab and Haryana was decided.
A notification of the Centre said that Punjab would get 3.5 MAF, Haryana would receive 3.5 MAF as well, while 0.2 MAF would be passed on to Delhi to help meet its drinking water
requirements.
The award notification ruffled many a feathers as it, for the first time, ordered construction of the SYL across Punjab and Haryana.
The constructon of the SYL in Punjab started in 1982, but soon the violence in the state overtook the matter and it was suspended for a long a time to come.
As the construction remained suspended for a long time due to the law and order situation in Punjab , Haryana later filed a suit in the Supreme Court in 1996 praying that Punjab be directed to finish the SYL construction. After five years, the apex court decreed in favour of Haryana on January 15, 2002 and Punjab was directed to make the canal functional within a year.
Both the states remained entangled in the legal war for quite some time, till June 2004, when the Supreme Court directed Punjab to complete the construction of the SYL within a year, failing which the task would be entrusted to the CPWD. In fact, on July 1, 2004, the Centre nominated the CPWD as the central agency to carry out the task.
But Punjab passed the Punjab Termination of Agreements act whereby it held all river water agreements null and void.
Haryana later challenged the act in the Supreme Court following which it was sent for the Presidential reference.
Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President later referred the bill to the Supreme Court for opinion asking whether the act was in consonance with the Constitution, whether it was in accordance with the Inter-state waters dispute act and whether Punjab stood discharged of the liability of constructing the SYL.
Meanwhile, Punjab filed a fresh plea with the Centre for constituting a new tribunal in the circumstances whereby flow of water in the Ravi-Beas system stood reduced and requirement of water in Punjab for agriculture purposes had increased over the years. So, the
construction of SYL for sparing any water for Haryana would be unfeasible.
As the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court started hearing arguments on the Presidential reference, the Centre told the court in March 2016 that the Punjab Termination of Agreements act was not in tune with the spirit of the Constitution.
The State Government meanwhile decided to hand over to farmers the land that had been acquired for the SYL construction.
The Punjab Assembly passed the Sutlej-Yamuna Canal (Transfer of Property Rights) act, 2016 in order to de-notify 5376 acres of the land that the state had acquired for the construction of the canal in 1977.
In the same breath, Punjab also returned a cheque of Rs 191 crores it had received at various intervals from Haryana for the construction of the canal. While Haryana refused to accept its money back, it moved the Supreme Court against Punjab enacting a law to hand back farmers’ land. The apex court was quick to order status quo in the matter and restrained Punjab from going ahead with it
As the Supreme Court is expected to deliver its final verdict on the matter shortly, Punjab has been pleading that the matter be resolved politically since it involves emotions of the people of the two states.
Punjab has also demanded that fresh tribunal be constituted to decide on the share of waters between the two states alleging that the flow of water in the rivers had reduced drastically over the years and the state had, in fact, no water to spare.
