M A I N   N E W S

Punjab files review plea on SYL
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 8
In a petition filed before the Supreme Court, the state of Punjab today sought the review of a judgement passed by the Apex Court directing it to continue the digging of the Satluj-Yamuna Canal and make it functional within a year.

The state, in its petition, claimed that the court had “erred in not treating an admitted water dispute as a water dispute” and added that there was “no legal basis for Haryana’s claim”. The state further claimed that there was a failure to “appreciate the equities in favour of Punjab, while noting the assertions in favour of Haryana” and “nine lakh acres would go dry”. Moreover, the strictures passed against the state were “not justified”, it was added on behalf of the state.

The state also asserted that the court “has assumed the jurisdiction upon itself which has not been conferred on it by the Constitution of India”. Giving details, the state contended that “the original jurisdiction of this court and all the courts with respect to the use, distribution or control of water in any inter-state river or river valley was barred by the virtue of Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, read with Article 262 of the Constitution of India”.

It was further stated: “Article 262 of the Constitution conferred exclusive powers on Parliament for adjudication of any dispute or complaint with regard to the use, distribution or control of waters of, or in, any inter-state river or river valley”.

The state also claimed that the court, while directing the state of Punjab to complete its portion of the SYL canal, failed to take into account the fact that there is no valid and binding allocation of river waters between the states of Haryana and Punjab”.

It was further argued that “for a large period of time, the state was under President’s rule, but still the Union of India found itself helpless in completing the canal. Any implementation which was at the cost of unacceptable human loss may not be advisable”.

Regarding Haryana’s claim, the Punjab state asserted that the Rajiv-Longowal pact could not be a basis of claim as Haryana was not a party to the pact and it was a political agreement. Moreover, all the previous arrangements and agreements were completely re-written following a decade of militancy and five year’s of President’s rule.

They added that the state of Punjab had to undertake preliminary work on the SYL canal under duress and therefore had to accept money for the purpose. “Anything done under duress loses legal sanctity”, the state added.

Giving a human angle to the issue, the state submitted, “The Court failed to take notice of the acute hardship and suffering undergone by Punjab and its people on account of its strategic location as a border state. Punjab has borne the brunt of the depredations of foreign invaders. After independence also, the state, having a hostile neighbour, had to suffer from cross-border terrorism which disrupted normal life”.

Contempt plea against Badal dismissed
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, February 8
The Supreme Court today dismissed two writ petitions for initiating contempt proceedings against Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal for threatening to prevent the construction and commissioning of the SYL canal and sharing waters with Haryana even if it amounted to contempt of the apex court.

Dismissing the petitions, a bench comprising Mr Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Mr Justice Brijesh Kumar said “the state government has been given one year’s time to construct the canal. Wait and see what action is taken by it.”

The petitions were filed by former Union Minister Sher Singh and Pratap Singh Chautala, a brother of Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala.

Hearing the petitions the Bench said “we do not see any reason to initiate contempt proceedings at this stage’’.

The Supreme Court in its order on January 15 took exception to the non-completion of Sutlej-Yamuna link (SYL) canal by the Punjab government and directed that it should be completed within a year to augment water supply to Haryana and Delhi. The court said that in case the Punjab government failed to accomplish the task within the stipulated time then the Centre should get the work done through its own agency.

The Shiromani Akali Dal led by Mr Badal has ever since maintained that it would file a review petition and not allow construction of the SYL canal. While releasing the SAD election manifesto, Mr Badal reiterated his stand.

In the hearing today, the counsel for the petitioners, Mr D.K. Garg, pleaded that the court should take into account the “tone and tenor” of Mr Badal’s statements.

Expressing displeasure over filing of the petitions at this stage, the court told Mr Garg “you want to make use of it in the elections.”

Both petitioners alleged that Mr Badal by his public utterances threatening to “defy” the court order, had clearly committed a contempt of court and action in this regard should be initiated against him.

Mr Justice Pattanaik said, “Mr Garg all that you want is to get political mileage at a time when electioneering is on. This is not the appropriate time for entertaining the petition,” the judge said while dismissing the plea.