Punjab not cooperating in resolving SYL canal dispute, Centre tells SC

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The Centre on Tuesday advised the Supreme Court the Punjab authorities is “not cooperating” in resolving the decades-old Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal dispute between the state and Haryana.

The apex court docket, which noticed that water is a pure useful resource and residing beings should be taught to share it, stated the events need to have a “broader outlook” and realise the ramifications and necessity of a negotiated settlement, extra so in view of safety issues, apparently referring to the occasional violence over the challenge.

The counsel for Punjab advised a bench headed by Justice S Ok Kaul that the state authorities could be very eager to resolve the difficulty amicably.

At the outset, Attorney General Ok Ok Venugopal, showing for the Centre, advised the bench that the apex court docket had in 2017 stated that matter must be amicably settled and the Union of India, by the Water Resources Ministry, has been attempting to deliver collectively states of Haryana and Punjab for the aim of an amicable settlement.

“Unfortunately, Punjab has not been cooperating,” the highest legislation officer stated, including that letters have been despatched in 2020 and 2021 to the then Punjab chief minister who didn’t reply in any respect.

Though official-level talks have been occurring between the 2 states on the SYL problem, the Centre has been insisting on conferences between the 2 chief ministers.

He stated a letter was despatched in April this yr when the brand new chief minister took over in Punjab however he has not responded until date.

“It is essential that so far as Punjab is concerned, it has to cooperate. It cannot refrain from coming to the discussion table,” Venugopal advised the bench, additionally comprising Justices A S Oka and Vikram Nath.

He stated the bench could direct the Punjab counsel to make sure the chief minister participated within the discussions on the difficulty along with his Haryana counterpart.

Responding to the suggestion, the bench stated typically the ultimate resolution lies somewhat past the courts.

“But then either the court proceeds to take a hard stand or the parties cooperate. So, I am hoping that the concerned stakeholders realise that abstention from the discussion is not the way forward,” Justice Kaul stated.

When the counsel representing Punjab stated they’re very eager to resolve the difficulty amicably, the bench quipped, “That keenness must reflect (in action).”

“Attorney General rightly points out that chief ministers of Punjab and Haryana were and are required to meet and it is agreed before us by the counsel present that such a meeting will be held within this month itself,” the bench stated.

The counsel showing for Rajasthan advised the bench that they wish to take part within the course of however are usually not allowed regardless of the orders of the apex court docket.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, showing for Haryana, stated Rajasthan was not a celebration to the decree handed by the apex court docket within the matter.

The water dispute began in 1966, when the Punjab Reorganisation Act divided erstwhile Punjab into Punjab and Haryana and the necessity arose to share river water between the 2 states.

Punjab, nevertheless, opposed sharing the water of Ravi and Beas rivers with Haryana, citing the Riparian Principle, which states that the proprietor of land adjoining to a waterbody has the precise to make use of the water. It additionally argued it had no water to spare.

Venugopal steered the court docket could give the states 4 months and, throughout this era, on the finish of the primary month, the 2 chief ministers will meet.

The bench famous in its order {that a} letter dated September 5, 2022, addressed by the secretary of the Ministry of Jal Shakti to the Attorney General, has been positioned earlier than the court docket.

It famous that Venugopal has knowledgeable the court docket that regardless of varied endeavours, Punjab didn’t be a part of the negotiating desk.

“The endeavour of this court has been to arrive at a mediated settlement. That should not be taken as a licence for an infinite period of time to elapse,” the bench noticed.

The apex court docket stated it expects the Ministry of Jal Shakti in addition to the states of Punjab and Haryana and likewise the state of Rajasthan to lend full cooperation in resolving the difficulty. The bench granted 4 months to the Centre to submit a progress report.

“Water is a natural resource and living beings must learn to share it, whether it be individuals, states or countries,” it noticed and posted the matter for listening to on January 19 subsequent yr.

The bench stated it understands these are delicate points for the states however some name must be taken to resolve them.

In 2017, the apex court docket had stated that decrees handed within the SYL canal dispute between Punjab and Haryana can’t be flouted. The controversial 1981 water-sharing settlement got here into being after Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966. For efficient allocation of water, SYL canal hyperlink was conceptualised.

A stretch of 214 km SYL was set to be constructed, of which 122 km have been to be in Punjab and 92 km in Haryana.

In 2004, the then Congress authorities of the state got here out with the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act with an intention to terminate the 1981 settlement and all different pacts referring to sharing of waters of rivers Ravi and Beas.

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

Punjab challenged the decision by submitting a swimsuit which was rejected in 2004 by the Supreme Court.

NEW DELHI: The Centre on Tuesday advised the Supreme Court the Punjab authorities is “not cooperating” in resolving the decades-old Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal dispute between the state and Haryana.

The apex court docket, which noticed that water is a pure useful resource and residing beings should be taught to share it, stated the events need to have a “broader outlook” and realise the ramifications and necessity of a negotiated settlement, extra so in view of safety issues, apparently referring to the occasional violence over the challenge.

The counsel for Punjab advised a bench headed by Justice S Ok Kaul that the state authorities could be very eager to resolve the difficulty amicably.

At the outset, Attorney General Ok Ok Venugopal, showing for the Centre, advised the bench that the apex court docket had in 2017 stated that matter must be amicably settled and the Union of India, by the Water Resources Ministry, has been attempting to deliver collectively states of Haryana and Punjab for the aim of an amicable settlement.

“Unfortunately, Punjab has not been cooperating,” the highest legislation officer stated, including that letters have been despatched in 2020 and 2021 to the then Punjab chief minister who didn’t reply in any respect.

Though official-level talks have been occurring between the 2 states on the SYL problem, the Centre has been insisting on conferences between the 2 chief ministers.

He stated a letter was despatched in April this yr when the brand new chief minister took over in Punjab however he has not responded until date.

“It is essential that so far as Punjab is concerned, it has to cooperate. It cannot refrain from coming to the discussion table,” Venugopal advised the bench, additionally comprising Justices A S Oka and Vikram Nath.

He stated the bench could direct the Punjab counsel to make sure the chief minister participated within the discussions on the difficulty along with his Haryana counterpart.

Responding to the suggestion, the bench stated typically the ultimate resolution lies somewhat past the courts.

“But then either the court proceeds to take a hard stand or the parties cooperate. So, I am hoping that the concerned stakeholders realise that abstention from the discussion is not the way forward,” Justice Kaul stated.

When the counsel representing Punjab stated they’re very eager to resolve the difficulty amicably, the bench quipped, “That keenness must reflect (in action).”

“Attorney General rightly points out that chief ministers of Punjab and Haryana were and are required to meet and it is agreed before us by the counsel present that such a meeting will be held within this month itself,” the bench stated.

The counsel showing for Rajasthan advised the bench that they wish to take part within the course of however are usually not allowed regardless of the orders of the apex court docket.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, showing for Haryana, stated Rajasthan was not a celebration to the decree handed by the apex court docket within the matter.

The water dispute began in 1966, when the Punjab Reorganisation Act divided erstwhile Punjab into Punjab and Haryana and the necessity arose to share river water between the 2 states.

Punjab, nevertheless, opposed sharing the water of Ravi and Beas rivers with Haryana, citing the Riparian Principle, which states that the proprietor of land adjoining to a waterbody has the precise to make use of the water. It additionally argued it had no water to spare.

Venugopal steered the court docket could give the states 4 months and, throughout this era, on the finish of the primary month, the 2 chief ministers will meet.

The bench famous in its order {that a} letter dated September 5, 2022, addressed by the secretary of the Ministry of Jal Shakti to the Attorney General, has been positioned earlier than the court docket.

It famous that Venugopal has knowledgeable the court docket that regardless of varied endeavours, Punjab didn’t be a part of the negotiating desk.

“The endeavour of this court has been to arrive at a mediated settlement. That should not be taken as a licence for an infinite period of time to elapse,” the bench noticed.

The apex court docket stated it expects the Ministry of Jal Shakti in addition to the states of Punjab and Haryana and likewise the state of Rajasthan to lend full cooperation in resolving the difficulty. The bench granted 4 months to the Centre to submit a progress report.

“Water is a natural resource and living beings must learn to share it, whether it be individuals, states or countries,” it noticed and posted the matter for listening to on January 19 subsequent yr.

The bench stated it understands these are delicate points for the states however some name must be taken to resolve them.

In 2017, the apex court docket had stated that decrees handed within the SYL canal dispute between Punjab and Haryana can’t be flouted. The controversial 1981 water-sharing settlement got here into being after Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966. For efficient allocation of water, SYL canal hyperlink was conceptualised.

A stretch of 214 km SYL was set to be constructed, of which 122 km have been to be in Punjab and 92 km in Haryana.

In 2004, the then Congress authorities of the state got here out with the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act with an intention to terminate the 1981 settlement and all different pacts referring to sharing of waters of rivers Ravi and Beas.

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

Punjab challenged the decision by submitting a swimsuit which was rejected in 2004 by the Supreme Court.