Centre convenes meet on Aug 18 to prod Punjab to complete SYL canal
BONE OF CONTENTION Punjab has refused to complete the remaining part of the Sutlej-yamuna Link canal arguing that the volume of water available in its rivers has drastically reduced over the years
CHANDIGARH: Union water resources minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat will hold a meeting with the chief ministers of Haryana and Punjab on August 18 to work out a solution for implementation of the Supreme Court’s January 15, 2002, and June 4, 2004, orders to complete the remaining portion of the Sutlej-yamuna Link (SYL) canal by Punjab. The meeting has been convened on the apex court’s directions issued on July 28.
In a communication to Haryana chief minister, ML Khattar, and his Punjab counterpart, Capt Amarinder Singh, the Union Minister has sought their presence in New Delhi on August 18 for the meeting.
“The Haryana chief minister has written back to the union minister to inform him that he will attend the August 18 meeting,” said a top official.
The apex court, during a hearing on July 28, had observed, “Let the chief ministers of both the states meet to find out the solution if any, else there is a decree which has to be executed.”
The SC had also ordered that
the outcome of the same, if any, be informed to this court” when the case is listed for hearing in the third week of August.
The Union water resources ministry recorded Punjab government’s unwillingness to complete the canal as several rounds of meetings between the central, Haryana and Punjab governments in 2019 remained inconclusive. The parleys were held on the orders of the Supreme Court to work out a solution to implement the apex court’s judgments to complete the remaining portion of the SYL canal in Punjab.
Top Haryana officials who attended the meetings said the Central ministry has recorded Punjab’s refusal to complete the canal in the minutes of the meetings held between the officials of the two states and the Centre.
“Punjab has clearly refused to complete the canal on the pretext of non-availability of spare water. Punjab’s argument was a mere excuse to not implement the apex court orders,” said a Haryana official.
“Completing the construction of canal and availability of water are two separate issues altogether. The water availability issue is relevant once the capacity to carry the water is in place,” said an official.
Quoting an example, the officials said that during monsoon when there are no restrictions on water indent, the surplus Ravi Beas water can be used for Haryana’s parched southern districts to supplement the receding groundwater table. “Otherwise this surplus water goes to Pakistan,” officials said.
During a September 2019 hearing, the apex court had granted four months to hold out mediation and resolve the dispute.
The SC had on July 9, 2019 requested the Punjab and Haryana chief ministers to constitute a committee of officers and ensure that deliberations took place with the intervention of the Central government at the highest level to work out a solution. During a September 2019 hearing, the apex court had granted four more months to hold out mediation and resolve the dispute.
The apex court had said that it hoped and trusted that functionaries of both the states will rise to the occasion to find out a solution which is in the interest of all and ultimately if the court is required to hear the matter on merits definitely it will do so.
Haryana has stuck to its stance that their share of 3.5 million acre feet (MAF) in the Ravi and Beas waters and the completion of the canal are absolutely non-negotiable. At present, Haryana gets 1.62 MAF of Ravi and Beas waters. Punjab, on the other hand, is furthering an argument that the volume of water available in its rivers has drastically reduced over the years.
The apex court had on July 11, 2017, said that the authorities of both states remember that a decree passed by the apex court has to be respected and executed. “Our granting of time does not endow Punjab with any kind of liberty to devour time and pave the path of procrastination. On the contrary, to take a stand of amiability and amicability so that the facilitator, that is, the central government can bring both parties together to resolve the issue,” the SC had said.
PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE
Answering a presidential reference in the matter, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court had on November 10, 2016, set aside the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, a law which unilaterally terminates Punjab’s water sharing pact with Haryana.
“The Punjab Act cannot be said to be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and by virtue of the said Act, Punjab cannot nullify the judgment and decree referred to hereinabove and terminate the December 1981 agreement,” the Supreme Court had said.