Punjab, Haryana inch closer to amicable settlement of decades-old SYL canal dispute
New Delhi, August 12
The Punjab and Haryana governments are inching closer to an amicable resolution of their decades-old dispute over the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal, the Supreme Court was informed on Wednesday.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing in the matter, told the apex court that the two States were now working towards a common position, with Punjab showing willingness to resolve the dispute.
"I must say that today we speak in a joint voice. Punjab is coming much closer. They have opened their heart much more than what they were talking last time," Venkataramani said.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, taking note of the progress, remarked, "Once the heart opens, the door also opens."
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing the long-standing Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal water-sharing dispute between Punjab and Haryana.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, also appearing in the case, said that considerable progress had been made in the matter.
The Attorney General sought a short adjournment, suggesting August 20 or a date in the following week, and CJI agreed that a brief adjournment would not prejudice the proceedings in view of the movement towards a settlement.
The top court last year criticised Punjab for de-notifying land acquired for the canal, calling it "high-handedness" and urging both States to find an amicable solution with the Centre.
The top court has taken up Haryana's 1996 original suit against Punjab seeking completion of the SYL Canal to enable the State to receive its share of the Ravi-Beas river waters.
The problem stems from the controversial 1981 water-sharing agreement after Haryana was formed out of Punjab in 1966. For effective allocation of water, the SYL canal was to be constructed, and the two States were required to construct their portions within their territories.
While Haryana constructed its portion of the canal, after the initial phase, Punjab stopped the work, leading to multiple cases.
In 2004, the Punjab government had passed a law that "unilaterally" cancelled the 1981 water-sharing pact between Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan; however, in 2016, the apex court had struck down this law.
Later, Punjab went ahead and returned the acquired land--on which the canal was to be constructed--to the landowners. In 2017, had ordered the State of Punjab to maintain status quo regarding the land and properties associated with the canal project.
The SYL canal had been a product of the 1981 agreement, which was meant to re-allocate the waters of Ravi and Beas in "overall national interest and for optimum utilisation of the waters".
— ANI
Reader Comments
The CJI's remark about hearts opening is so apt! 🙌 It's about time both states realized that fighting over water only hurts the people. Haryana has been waiting for its rightful share for too long. Hope this isn't just another false promise.
Decades of litigation and millions spent on legal fees, while the actual canal remains incomplete. The real victims are the farmers on both sides who suffer from water scarcity. I just hope the politicians don't derail this at the last moment for electoral gains.
Interesting to see India's federal system handling interstate water disputes through the Supreme Court. The cooperative federalism approach seems to be working here. Hopefully, this sets a precedent for other water disputes in the country. 🤞
I'm cautiously optimistic. Punjab has been obstinate about this for years, returning land and even passing laws to cancel the agreement. What's changed now? Is it the Supreme Court's pressure or genuine willingness to resolve? Let's see what the August 20 hearing brings.
As someone from Haryana, this gives me hope! We've been waiting for our fair share of Ravi-Beas waters since 1982. The SYL canal is crucial for our farmers. But I also feel for Punjab - they have their own water challenges. A fair compromise is the need of the hour. 🤝
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.