SC talks tough, says verdicts on SYL canal have to be executed

In a stern message to Punjab, the Supreme Court today said its verdict allowing construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal in Haryana and Punjab has to be implemented.

A bench comprising Justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy also made clear that it would deliberate upon Punjab's contention as to whether the judgement of a five-judge constitution bench, which held its law unconstitutional, was binding. "The decree passed by this court has to be given effect to," the bench said. A five-judge bench, while answering the Presidential Reference on November 11, 2016, had held that the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 was unconstitutional as it negated the effect of apex court judgements of 2002 and 2004.

Senior advocate R S Suri, appearing for the Punjab government, said the five-judge bench verdict was not binding as it was given under its advisory jurisdiction and the Punjab law still stands. He also said that the decrees passed by the apex court was not executable. The Punjab government told the bench that the verdict which held Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 as unconstitutional did not render the law invalid, as the apex court had only given an opinion on the Presidential Reference. The Parkash Singh Badal government told the court that the State Act took away the very basis of the 2002 decree that went in favour of construction of SYL canal.

Suri said Punjab was forced to pass the 2004 Act because its water complaint filed in January 2003 was not acted upon and the Centre never set up a water tribunal to address its grievances. The bench, however, clarified that it would not revisit the facts and asked both the states to argue whether the verdicts including the one delivered on the Presidential Reference were binding or not. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Haryana government, opposed Punjab's submission and said if one state has to challenge the validity of a law passed by another, then it would pose serious consequences for India's integrity.

"If one state is forced to challenge the validity of a law passed by another state before the Supreme Court, then the Indian federation is not on a stable course," Divan said.

Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, who also represented Punjab, again requested the court to ask the Centre to try to mediate between the two states by bringing them to the negotiating table. The hearing remained inconclusive and the bench fixed the matter for further hearing on March 28.

On the last date of hearing, the apex court had made it clear that its verdict allowing construction of the SYL canal has to be executed and had asked Haryana and Punjab to maintain law and order "at any cost". Punjab, in its affidavit, had maintained that the Punjab Termination of Water Agreement Act of 2004 was still in force and it discharged the state of all responsibility to provide water to other states. It claimed that the SC verdict that the 2004 Act was unconstitutional did not render the law invalid as the apex court had only given an opinion on the Presidential reference.

The apex court has categorically said the canal has to be constructed by a central agency and the November 10, 2016 constitution bench verdict has said that the Punjab Act, terminating the water agreement, was unconstitutional. On November 30 last year, the court had directed maintenance of status quo on SYL canal and appointed Union Home Secretary, Chief Secretary of Punjab and the Punjab DGP as court receivers of the lands, works, property and portions of the canal. It had asked them to file a report with regard to the ground situation of the property.

The court had then also thwarted Punjab's attempt to wriggle out of SYL water sharing pact, saying it cannot "unilaterally" terminate it or legislate to "nullify" the verdict of the highest court. court had issued notice to Punjab on Haryana's plea seeking enforcement of the apex court verdicts and appointment of the receivers to ensure that the project land in Punjab remained intact.