Apex court hearing: Centre plays safe, declines to take stand

NEW DELHI: The Haryana government on Monday lodged a strong protest before the Supreme Court against Punjab assembly’s move to pass a Bill to return the land acquired for the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal.

Stating the legislation would affect the federal structure and threaten national security, the government asked the top court to intervene to prevent the Bill’s passage.

However, a constitution bench headed by Justice AR Dave, declined to issue any order granting immediate relief to the Haryana government and posted the matter for a hearing on March 17 after the counsel for Punjab said they were not aware of the Bill.

Senior counsel Ram Jethamlani and RS Suri took time to take instructions on Haryana’s contention and said they would get back to the court on the next date.

On its part, the central government played safe during the hearing as it declined to take a stand on the issue. Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi said Haryana was free to challenge the new law.

Opening the arguments for Haryana, senior advocate Shyam Divan said the proposed law by Punjab would render the presidential reference to the top court on the validity of the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act 2004 meaningless. Under the Act, Punjab had sought to withdraw its commitment to share the river waters of Ravi, Beas and Sutlej.

The 2004 Act was brought in with the purpose of defeating two SC judgments ordering Punjab to construct the SYL canal on its territory. Divan said the latest move was to render the reference meaningless.

He said the legislation would affect the federal structure and threaten national security.

Though Jethmalani and Suri said they were not informed about the proposed legislation, the two still contested Haryana’s contention. Both said the proposed law was perhaps meant to protect the interests of the farmers whose land had been acquired for the project.

Rohatgi said the Centre will not take sides by supporting either Punjab or Haryana. But, he asked the SC not to prevent the Punjab assembly from going ahead with the legislation.

“Haryana was free to challenge it, upon which the SC could give its ruling on the validity of the Act,” he told the bench, advising it to defer the hearing for two weeks.