PTI
New Delhi, March 23
The Supreme Court on Thursday advised the Centre that being the principle arbiter in water dispute between two states, it’s required to play a more “pro-active function as a substitute of being a mute spectator” and requested the Punjab and Haryana governments to maintain discussions to resolve the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal dispute.
During the listening to, the Punjab authorities advised the highest court docket that they’ve big shortage of water with water tables taking place within the rivers and there may be “no level constructing canals like a Taj Mahal”, with no water flowing by it.
The Haryana authorities, alternatively, advised the apex court docket that its individuals want water which comes from Punjab, which has to abide by the decree for development of a canal in its jurisdictional space.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar mentioned, “We count on the endeavours of the States to sit collectively to nonetheless discover a answer is the best way ahead and we name upon the States to maintain conferences, not regularly on the highest political dispensation stage in order that no less than there may be some progress within the discussions. We count on the Union of India additionally to play a proactive function within the endeavour to bridge the hole.”
During the listening to, Justice Amanullah advised Attorney General R Venkataramani, showing for the Centre, “Mr Attorney, in issues of water dispute between two or more states, the Centre is the principle arbiter. Why can’t the Centre play a more pro-active function to resolve the problem, as a substitute of being a mute spectator?”
Venkataramani mentioned the Centre has made all honest endeavours as directed by the court docket and each Punjab and Haryana governments held conferences however there was no consensus between each of them with regard to development of the canal.
“In our view, some more conferences want to be held between the 2 States for locating a workable answer on the problem sooner or later. The Ministry of Jal Shakti is making all efforts to carry the states collectively for an amicable answer,” he mentioned.
The SYL canal was conceptualised for efficient allocation of water from Ravi and Beas rivers. The undertaking envisaged a 214-km canal, of which 122 km was to be constructed in Punjab and 92 km in Haryana. Haryana has accomplished the undertaking in its territory. Though Punjab took up the work in 1982, it was later shelved.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, showing for Punjab authorities, mentioned it’s not saying that the state is not going to present water to Haryana however there may be shortage of water as water tables have gone down in varied rivers of the state.
“We don’t have sufficient water. We don’t need to construct a canal like a ‘Taj Mahal’ with no water flowing by it. We are searching for organising of a water tribunal to resolve the problem primarily based on the provision of water within the state,” Dwivedi mentioned.
To this, the bench advised Dwivedi, “You have to begin with one thing. You have to meet regularly to arrive at a consensus. Unless you begin assembly, there can’t be any give and take. Both States are a part of this nation solely. Start with some goodwill gesture and arrive at some consensus.”
Counsel for Haryana authorities mentioned within the assembly which can also be talked about within the affidavit filed by the Centre, it has been mentioned that Punjab is just not agreeing to adjust to the decree and the stand taken by the state is just not workable.
“There can’t be any end result of any conferences if Punjab doesn’t transfer from the said place,” the Haryana authorities’s counsel mentioned.
Then Justice Kaul advised Dwivedi, “If you don’t transfer ahead, then how will issues transfer? We know that there’s a new dispensation within the state however you have got to adjust to the directive of this court docket. It seems that matter is just not transferring forward due to the stand taken by the Punjab authorities. This stand is just not acceptable.”
The counsel for Haryana mentioned that the decree was in opposition to the Punjab authorities and they’re required to abide by it by setting up the canal falling of their jurisdiction.
He mentioned the reliance by the Punjab authorities on the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act (PTAA), 2004, stating that it’s nonetheless in pressure is just not sustainable in regulation because the reference was made which has been answered in opposition to the State of Punjab by this court docket.
The bench mentioned, “We are additionally clear in our view that no matter else would be the defence of the State of Punjab, no reliance is permissible on the aforesaid (PTAA) Act as soon as the reference is answered in opposition to it. We, nonetheless, document the submissions of the counsel for State of Punjab that that is an advisory opinion”.
The bench posted the matter for additional listening to on October 4.
The dispute between the 2 states has been lingering on for many years and the highest court docket had on January 15, 2002, dominated in favour of Haryana in a swimsuit filed by it in 1996 and directed the Punjab authorities to assemble the SYL canal.
Since then varied orders have been handed by the apex court docket within the matter, together with a verdict by a five-judge Constitution bench whereas deciding a 2004 presidential reference that mentioned that Punjab has to adjust to its earlier verdict and held as unconstitutional the PTAA, 2004.
On January 4, Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and his Haryana counterpart Manohar Lal Khattar had caught to their stand in a gathering chaired by Union Jal Shakti Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat.
On September 6 final yr, the highest court docket had mentioned, “Water is a pure useful resource and residing beings should study to share it whether or not be it people, States or international locations!” The high court docket was knowledgeable by the Centre at that time of time that the Punjab authorities had not joined the negotiating desk and no conferences had been held for about two years.
“The endeavour of this Court has been to arrive at a mediated settlement. That shouldn’t be taken as a licence for an infinite time frame to lapse. We are positive that the events do realise the ramifications and the need of a negotiated settlement, more so, in view of the safety considerations which come up when different forces begin taking up in such a situation,” the highest court docket had mentioned.
