Conveying its hope that the people of Punjab and Haryana to “behave properly”, the Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the Centre's efforts to resolve the crisis between the two neighbouring States over the Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal.
A Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra cautioned the States to not indulge in any adventurism or dampen the amicable effort at peace by way of agitations and violence when the issue is under the watch of the Supreme Court.
“We direct that there should be sustenance of peace in Punjab and Haryana. Every citizen of this country must understand that when proceeding is going on in the court, there should not be any kind of agitation on the issue pending,” the court ordered.
Giving time till September to reach a settlement, the court said the grant of more time should not be treated by Punjab as a leeway to employ delay tactics.
“We reiterate that granting of time does not endow Punjab any kind of liberty to devour time and pave the path of procrastination... Authorities should remember that Supreme Court decrees should be respected and complied with,” the court observed.
"Our decree is for construction of canal by both the States. Therefore, canal has to be constructed,” the court observed.
The court remarked that focus should be on the construction of the canal and the issue of water supply could be decided later once the work is completed.
Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal said the Centre was making its best efforts and Union Minister of Water Resources Uma Bharti had met the Chief Ministers of both the States.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, for Haryana, however expressed his reservations about the ongoing negotitations, but clarified that Haryana would not stand in the way of a resolution. Haryana informed the court that it had completed 90 per cent of work on the canal on its side.
A five-judge Constitution Bench had in November last year set aside the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 which "unilaterally" terminated the 1981 water-sharing pact of the State with Haryana.
The apex court had concluded that the Act was illegally designed to terminate the December 31, 1981 agreement entered into among Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan to re-allocate the waters of Ravi and Beas in “overall national interest and for optimum utilisation of the waters”.
The SYL Canal was a product of this 1981 agreement.
By introducing the 2004 Act, Punjab had defied two back-to-back apex court verdicts, pronounced in 2002 and 2004. The first one had directed Punjab to complete the SYL Canal in a year. The second judgment had ordered the formation of a central agency to “take control” of Punjab's work on the canal.
However, Punjab maintains that the 2004 is still in force. It has argued that the November 2016 Supreme Court verdict was only an opinion given by the court on a Presidential reference and not a verdict as such to be complied as law.
Published - July 11, 2017 01:55 pm IST
