Punjab and Haryana Near Resolution in Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Dispute, Supreme Court Informed

Introduction

The longstanding Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal dispute between Punjab and Haryana may soon see a resolution as both states have moved closer towards an agreement, the Supreme Court was informed on Wednesday.

Contents

Background of the Dispute

The conflict traces back to the reorganization of Punjab in 1966, which resulted in the creation of Haryana as a separate state. The canal was supposed to facilitate Haryana’s access to its share of the Ravi-Beas river waters, a move opposed by Punjab on the grounds of insufficient surplus water. An agreement signed in 1981 involving Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan mandated the completion of the SYL canal within two years, but construction was halted due to ensuing violence.

Supreme Court Proceedings

A Bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana heard the matter. The original suit, filed by Haryana in 1996, sought Punjab’s compliance with the canal construction. Despite a 2002 Supreme Court directive for Punjab to complete the canal, the state enacted the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act in 2004, seeking to nullify its obligations under the 1981 agreement. However, the Supreme Court in 2016 declared the 2004 law unconstitutional, reinforcing the 2002 decree.

Current Developments

Attorney General R Venkataramani informed the Court that Punjab and Haryana are now working collaboratively towards resolving the dispute, noting that Punjab has shown increased willingness to settle. “I must say that today we speak in a joint voice. Punjab is coming much closer,” Venkataramani stated. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal highlighted the significant progress in discussions between the two states, indicating Haryana’s readiness to move forward.

Future Court Proceedings

Venkataramani expressed optimism that the ongoing negotiations could resolve the remaining issues and suggested a follow-up hearing on August 20 or the subsequent week, depending on the Court’s schedule. CJI Surya Kant concurred, acknowledging that a brief postponement would not hinder the progress achieved so far. “Once it is moving in the right direction, a week here or there does not make much difference,” he remarked.