Maintaining neutral stand on SYL: Centre
PUNJAB HAS TAKEN A STAND THAT THE SUPREME COURT ONLY HAS AN “ADVISORY JURISDICTION” TO RENDER ITS OPINION ON A QUESTION OF LAW REFERRED BY PREZ
NEW DELHI/CHANDIGARH: The central government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it was maintaining a “neutral” stand in the tussle between Punjab and Haryana over sharing water through the SutlejYamuna Link (SYL) canal.
“We are neutral. We can’t take a stand,” solicitor general Ranjit Kumar submitted before a five-judge constitution bench headed by justice AR Dave that is conducting a hearing on the Presidential Reference pertaining to the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004.
The solicitor general’s statement came after the Punjab government, through its senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, said the Centre had to make its stand clear and it could not leave the matter to the states.
The Punjab government has taken a stand that the SC only had “advisory jurisdiction” to render its opinion on a question of law or fact referred by the President. “No consequential orders can be passed under Article 143 except in the nature of advisory suggestions,” states the 43-page reply filed in the court.
Punjab has also questioned the maintainability of Haryana’s application made before the apex court on the grounds that it (SC) can’t give an opinion on an issue which is not a subject matter of the reference.
On March 17, the SC had directed Punjab and the Centre to maintain status quo on the SYL canal land following an application filed by Haryana.
“The Punjab Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Land (Transfer of Proprietary Rights) Bill- 2016 has not been referred by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution for consideration by this court and, therefore, it does not have jurisdiction to entertain any injunction application in this regard. In this view of the matter, no order much less an interim order can be passed against the parties and that too in respect of matters and questions not forming a part of the reference. Prayers for appointment of a receiver or prayers for restraining from publicising the bill are outside the purview of the Article 143,” states the reply.