Supreme Court Rebukes Punjab Government Over SYL Canal Land Denotification, Labels It ‘High-Handedness’
In a strongly worded observation, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday came down heavily on the Punjab government for its controversial decision to denotify land previously acquired for the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal.
The court questioned the intent behind the move, calling it a “clear case of high-handedness” and an apparent attempt to undermine the authority of judicial decisions.
The remarks came from Justice B. R. Gavai, who, along with another judge, was presiding over a two-judge bench hearing a long-standing legal dispute between the states of Punjab and Haryana concerning the construction of the SYL canal—a critical project meant to facilitate the equitable sharing of waters from the Ravi and Beas rivers.
Court Questions Punjab’s Intent Behind Denotification
During the proceedings, Justice Gavai grilled Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh, who was representing the Punjab government, questioning whether the denotification of the acquired land after a court decree had already been passed was an act aimed at intentionally frustrating the implementation of the court’s verdict.
“Was it not an act of high-handedness that once a decree was passed, land which was acquired for the construction of the canal was de-notified? Is this not an attempt to defeat the decree of the court? This is a clear case of high-handedness,” Justice Gavai remarked.
The bench referred to its earlier 2017 directive, which had explicitly ordered the state to maintain status quo concerning all land and properties associated with the SYL canal project. Justice Gavai reminded the counsel that the court’s position had been consistent, and that any deviation from its orders would be taken seriously.
Punjab’s Stand: Public Sentiment and Border Sensitivity
In response, Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh defended the Punjab government’s actions by citing emotional and security-related sensitivities.
He explained that the issue of river water sharing is deeply emotive for the people of Punjab and has been a flashpoint for political unrest in the past. He emphasized that as a border state, Punjab cannot afford the risk of internal instability, especially given the state’s proximity to Pakistan and its history of civil disturbances.
Singh also noted that Haryana is already receiving its allocated water share, determined based on consumption patterns, and that its request for additional water resources is currently under review by a tribunal set up for inter-state water disputes.
However, Justice Gavai appeared unconvinced by this line of reasoning. He asked pointedly whether Singh was implying that the Supreme Court had issued a decree without fully considering all relevant factors, which he suggested would amount to alleging judicial oversight or non-application of mind.
“So according to you, this court has passed a decree without considering everything? Are you suggesting non-application of mind on the part of the court?” Justice Gavai asked.
Court Sets August 13 as Deadline for Resolution Efforts
In light of the continuing disagreement between the two states, the bench urged both Punjab and Haryana to actively cooperate with the central government in working toward a mutually agreeable solution.
The justices made it clear that if no progress is made in this direction, the court would be forced to resume hearings on the matter on August 13, signaling the judiciary’s growing impatience with the stalemate.
Background: A Long-Running Dispute
The legal battle stems from a suit filed by Haryana, which has long insisted on the completion of the SYL canal to ensure it receives its fair share of water from the Ravi and Beas rivers. The canal was conceptualized to execute the 1981 agreement between Punjab and Haryana, which laid down the framework for sharing the waters.
However, the project has faced repeated hurdles over the years due to political opposition, public protests, and legislative maneuvering by the Punjab government.
In 2022, the Supreme Court issued a clear directive to Punjab, instructing that the canal construction be completed within one year. Yet, two years later, in 2024, Punjab unilaterally terminated the 1981 water-sharing agreement, a move that added further complexity to the case.
Constitutional Opinion and Past Court Ruling
In response to Punjab’s termination of the agreement, the matter was referred to the President of India, who, in turn, sought the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution.
In its 2016 advisory opinion, the apex court made its stance unequivocally clear. It held that one state cannot unilaterally walk away from a binding interstate agreement using its legislative powers.
Such unilateral action, the court said, would be violative of the Constitution of India and inconsistent with the principles laid out in the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.
“The agreement could not have been unilaterally terminated by one of the parties by exercising its legislative power, and if any party or any state does so, such unilateral action has to be declared contrary to the Constitution of India as well as the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956,” the Supreme Court had ruled in its 2016 opinion.
