Supreme Court refuses to defer Sutlej-Yamuna Link case hearing till Punjab poll results

At the outset, Punjab government told the bench that it has not yet filed its response to Haryana's petition seeking compliance of the apex court's earlier order.

Published: 15th February 2017 08:04 PM  |   Last Updated: 15th February 2017 08:04 PM   |  A+A-

A view of the Supreme Court premises. | PTI File Photo

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today reacted sharply and rejected a Punjab government request for posting the hearing on the crucial Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal dispute matter after the declaration of assembly poll results on March 11.

"What is the use of courts waiting for election results," a bench comprising Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy observed after senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Punjab, made the request.

The bench then posted the matter for hearing on February 22.

"Kindly keep it (the matter for hearing) after March 11. The election result will be announced on March 11," Jethmalani had said earlier.

At the outset, Punjab government told the bench that it has not yet filed its response to Haryana's petition seeking compliance of the apex court's earlier order and that it will be filed soon.

Jethmalani said they would also file a rejoinder to the reply filed by the Centre and sought time for it.

The bench, which said that the interim order of status quo will continue till further order, asked Punjab to file the response by February 20.

The apex court had earlier said that decrees passed in the SYL canal dispute between Punjab and Haryana cannot be flouted and directed both states to strictly implement its orders.

It had on November 30 last year directed maintenance of status quo on SYL canal and appointed Union Home Secretary, Chief Secretary of Punjab and the Director-General of Police, Punjab as court receivers of the lands, works, property and portions of the canal. It had asked them to file a report with regard to the ground situation of the property.

In November last year, the court had thwarted Punjab's attempt to wriggle out of SYL water sharing pact, saying it cannot "unilaterally" terminate it or legislate to "nullify" the verdict of the highest court.

The court had issued a notice to Punjab on Haryana's plea seeking enforcement of the apex court verdicts and appointment of the receivers to ensure that the project land in Punjab remained intact.

The controversial 1981 water-sharing agreement came into being after Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966.

For effective allocation of water, SYL canal link was conceptualised and both the states were required to construct their portions within their territories.

Haryana constructed the portion of SYL canal in its territory. However, Punjab after initial work, stopped the work, leading to the spate of litigations.

In 2004, the Congress government of the state came out with the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act with an intention to terminate the 1981 agreement and all other pacts relating to sharing of waters of rivers Ravi and Beas.

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

Punjab challenged the verdict by filing an original suit which was rejected in 2004 by the Supreme Court which asked the Centre to take over the remaining infrastructural work of the SYL canal project.

Stay up to date on all the latest Nation news with The New Indian Express App. Download now
(Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe'. Follow the instructions after that.)

Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

facebook twitter whatsapp