SC strikes down Punjab’s law on water sharing with states

“All the questions have been answered in the negative,” a fivejudge bench headed by Justice A R Dave said, while pronouncing its decision on the presidential reference received by it. The judgement makes it clear that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 is ‘unconstitutional’ and Punjab could not have taken a ‘unilateral’ decision to terminate the water sharing agreement with Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi and Chandigarh. 

The bench, which also included Justices P C Ghose, Shiva Kirti Singh, A K Goel and Amitava Roy, was unanimous in holding that all the five questions of Presidential reference have to be answered in the negative. The judgement implies that the 2004 Act was not in consonance with the apex court judgement  of 2003 which had mandated the construction of the SYL canal that has been stalled. By the 2004 Act brought by the then Congress government led by Captain Amarinder Singh, the state had sought to nullify the SC verdict by stopping the construction of the remaining part of the SYL canal. 

The judgement came on the presidential reference of 2004 on the controversy relating to sharing of water from SYL canal by the north Indian states. A fivejudge constitution bench headed by Justice A R Dave, who is demitting office on November 18, had reserved the verdict on May 12 after the Centre maintained its earlier stand of 2004. 

The Centre had said it was not taking sides and maintaining a neutral stand in the matter in which the court has recorded the stands of other states - Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir. During the hearing, while Punjab Assembly passed a law to return the land acquired on its side for the construction of SYL canal, the Haryana government approached the apex court which directed that status quo be maintained.