The Punjab-Haryana Water Dispute

Must Read

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

Follow us

The Supreme Court in a five-member constitution bench headed by Justice Anil R Dave invalidated the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 – the Act by which Punjab had terminated its pact with Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi for the sharing the Ravi-Beas river waters.

The judgment in effect mandated Punjab to comply with the courts previous two judgments on completion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (hereinafter SYL) canal.

The History of the SYL Canal Feud

The Punjab-Haryana Water Dispute
Dilapidated Satluj Yamuna Link Canal at Ropar. -Express photograph by Swadesh Talwar

For a better context of the ruling, it’s advantageous to have a historical understanding as to what exactly the SYL issue is and where it all started.

The SYL canal was built between Rivers Sutlej and Yamuna to provide water to Haryana from the Punjab side of the water bodies. In 1966, when Haryana was carved out from Punjab, a central high level panel in 1971, came up with the recommendation to share Punjab’s water with Haryana.

The center later issued notification instructing the SYL to be constructed. While Haryana constructed its share of the canal, Punjab, however, was not ready to build it. After pressure from the Central and Haryana Government in 1985 a “Settlement Agreement” was signed by the then PM Rajiv Gandhi and Akali Dal President Sant Harchand Singh Longowal however, the constructions never met the set deadlines and the situation never improved in spite of several orders from the Water Tribunal to finish the construction expeditiously. The matter took its toll in 2004 when the then Chief Minister of Punjab Captain Amarinder Singh terminated the water sharing vide the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004.

The present ruling by the Supreme Court was made after a presidential reference was sent to the Court regarding the constitutional validity of the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004.

Contentions of the State

The contentions pleaded before the Court by the State of Haryana was that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 was an effort by the state of Punjab to bypass the judgment on completion of the SYL canal. Punjab enacted another law this year, to give back to the farmers the land acquired from them for completion of the SYL canal and the state of Haryana further contended that this law was an effort to render the presidential reference invalid.

The state of Punjab on the other hand contended that an effect of the 2004 Act was that the previous judgments on the SYL canal issue was invalid and hence, the 2016 law to return the land acquired from the farmer back to them did not violate any court order.

Developments Post the Judgment

The judgment was met with widespread political protest. Capt. Amarinder Singh resigned from his Lok Sabha seat and all the party MLAs resigned from their assembly seats as mark of protest against the alleged “injustice meted out to the people of the state.”

The Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal while stating the judgment to be unwelcome termed the resignation of Capt. Amarinder Singh Badal as a political stunt while Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal even before the judgment had stated that even in case of an adverse judgment he would not let any outside elements enter the state and “take even a drop from Punjab”.

Meanwhile, in Haryana the decision was welcome with much aplomb and the incumbent Chief Minister Manohar Lal hailed the persistent efforts made by the present state government for resolving the issue. The khap leaders of Haryana went on to announce that they would disconnect Punjab from New Delhi by blocking all connectivity by rail and road if the Punjab government refused to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court.

Ramification of the Judgment on the Upcoming ElectionThe Punjab-Haryana Water Dispute

The implication of the order on the upcoming Punjab election is manifold.

It was the then incumbent Chief Minister of Punjab, Capt. Amarinder Singh who was responsible for the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004. And, invalidation of the Act may augur well for the other parties in contention. It is interesting to note that in 2004, Capt. Amarinder Singh in an act of rebellion had defied party chief Sonia Gandhi and the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh while enacting the act and today this might just be the mileage the Congress Party would need to reclaim the state.

The stand taken by the BJP at the center is neutral however, the Narendra Modi led party did not shy away from pointing out the fact that the 2004 Act was in violation of two previous Supreme Court judgments on the very same issue. The ploy of BJP may not augur well for its chances in the upcoming elections as it threatens its alliance with the Akali Dal in Punjab, however, it is to be kept in mind that the BJP is the ruling party in the state of Haryana and hence staying totally neutral on the issue was never an option.

The Aam Aadmi Party, who secured their only seats to the Lok Sabha election from Punjab, is still grappling with the nuances of the issues and is yet to take a firm stand on the same.


The court after directing to maintain a status quo on the issue appointed three receivers in connection to the case and has sought a report from them on the next hearing of the issue scheduled on 15th December on the situations in relation to the land involved in the SYL canal. Senior Supreme Court lawyer, Mr. Harish Salve, appearing on behalf of the state of Punjab on the SYL issue was met by the Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal stating that the issue was not merely one pertaining to a legal issue but was one that involved emotions.

Former Chief Minister of the state and the man behind the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, Capt. Amarinder Singh has warned that the judgment on the SYL canal can lead to the resurgence of Khalistani terrorism in the state because of possible denial of water to residents of Malwa and other regions of southern Punjab which have a past history of violence.

The debate surrounding the judgment may go on but what is to be seen is the execution of the same. Given the legal and emotional perspective attached to the SYL canal it is well and truly a very sensitive issue and any judgement was bound to come with both welcome and unwelcome responses. The SC hearing on December 15 will indicate how deep the water is and any possible instances of violence or any form of opposition towards the judgment by the state of Punjab, which seems likely at this stage, is how the Supreme Court clamps down upon them. Arguably, this judgment may decide the fate of the upcoming Punjab elections and in the face of it   the conduct of the parties with diametrically different opinions on the issue is to be observed.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -