In a massive blow to thousands of farmers in poll-bound Punjab, Supreme Court on Thursday held a 2004 law, passed by the State's legislative assembly scrapping all inter-State water sharing accords and leading to the return of over 5000 acres of land acquired for the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, constitutionally invalid.
In a decision which may cause political ripples within Punjab and see a rise in border tensions with neighbouring Haryana, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Anil R. Dave has effectively said the land will not be returned to the Punjab farmers and will be retained for SYL canal, which is at the centre of a water-sharing dispute with Haryana.
A five-judge Constitution Bench pronounced the judgment on a Presidential Reference on the validity of a 2004 law — Punjab Termination of Agreements Act — under which Punjab had sought to ease out of its liability to share the waters of Ravi, Beas and Sutlej.
"We have replied to all the questions (in the Reference) in the negative," the Bench pronounced.
The questions in the Presidential Reference were:
1. Whether the 2004 Act in accordance with the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the 2004 law is in accordance with the Inter State Water Disputes Act and the Punjab Re-organisation Act of 1966, in which Haryana was carved out of Punjab.
3. Did Punjab validly terminate the agreement of December 31, 1981 and other agreements concerning the Ravi-Beas waters.
4. Whether Punjab is discharged of its water-sharing obligations to Haryana flowing from separate Supreme Court verdicts on January 15, 2002 and June 4, 2004
Haryana had revived the long-pending Reference after the Punjab Cabinet gave the green signal for tabling the Punjab Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal (Rehabilitation and Re-vesting of Proprietary Rights) Bill, 2016, in the State Assembly. It provided for the return of over 5000 acres of land acquired from farmers for the canal.
Haryana had argued that Punjab cannot “successively legislate” away the Supreme Court’s role as the primary protector of the Constitution and the court’s duty to strike a balance between the interests of both the States.
Haryana had argued in court that while the 2004 Act was intended to defeat two Supreme Court judgments ordering Punjab to construct the canal on its territory, the new Bill was aimed at rendering the current Reference infructuous. Haryana had argued that “it is the duty of this Court to maintain the integrity of the federal structure" to stop Punjab.
“You have to strike a balance between the States, large and small, powerful and weak, upstream or downstream. If you allow them to trump over your jurisdiction by successively legislating away, your powers, considered a linchpin in the Constitution, will lie denuded,” senior advocate Shyam Diwan for Haryana had argued.
