New Delhi, June 8
The Supreme Court seems to have left the Amarinder government with little scope for legal remedy in the controversial Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal case and castigated the Chief Minister and senior officials of Punjab for not implementing its January 15, 2002, decree, saying they had acted as a "super judicial" body over the apex court.
A Bench of Ms Justice Ruma Pal and Mr Justice P. V. Reddi, analysing the case threadbare on Haryana's application for implementation of the January 15, 2002, decree and Punjab's counter suit against the order, in its 78-page judgement, copies of which were available to the Press today, described the Punjab Government's action as nothing short of an act of an "offending party guilty of contempt."
In the judgement, which was pronounced on June 4, the court had ordered the Union Government to construct the unfinished portion of the 214 km-long canal in the territory of Punjab through its agency to be appointed within a month, saying that the amount of Rs 560 crore spent on the project so far "cannot be allowed to be washed down the drain" when the entire 92-km portion in Haryana was complete.
Taking exception to the Punjab Government filing a suit to challenge its January 2002 verdict even after its review petition against the order was rejected, Justice Pal, who wrote the judgement for the Bench, said: "The correspondence (of the Punjab Government) and the record of minutes show that the Chief Minister as well as the Government officials named in the correspondence have arrogated themselves the power of sitting as a super-judicial body over this Court."
"By refusing to comply with the decree of this Court under Article 131, not only is the offending party guilty of contempt but the very foundation of the Constitution, which the people governing the State have sworn to uphold when assuming office and to which this country owes its continued existence, is shaken," the Court observed.
"Additionally, and in the ultimate analysis, it is manifest that the suit has been filed (by Punjab) only with a view to subvert the decision of this Court," it said.
"It is, we repeat, the constitutional duty of those who wield power in the States to create appropriate political climate to ensure a respect for the constitutional process and not set such process at naught only to gain political mileage," the court said, while asking the Punjab Government to hand over the land for the unfinished SYL portion to the Central agency within two weeks of its appointment.
The court also criticised the Punjab Government for forwarding an argument that any adverse order in the case might revive militancy in the state, saying "the vague plea relating to the possible rise of militancy by the construction of SYL is not an acceptable defence at all."
The Bench said since the resolution of such disputes in favour of
one party “will invariably” have a political impact, Article 131 of the Constitution, therefore, has given the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction to decide such a dispute strictly on legal considerations and in keeping with the provision of the Constitution.
The court, rejecting Punjab’s counter suit, said such a suit for modification of the decree “will not lie because the decree itself has not sought to be impeached.”
“The
injunction, whether right or wrong, is not subject to impeachment in its application to the conditions that existed at its making,” the Bench said, adding, “We can, therefore, only conclude that there is no cause of action (on part of Punjab) within the meaning of Article 131 as far as the prayers relating to the discharge of the injunction granted by the decree is concerned.”
“Punjab was required to complete the canal by
January 15, 2003.... Instead of accepting the decree in good grace, every possible step has been taken to thwart it,” it said.
The court reminded the Punjab Government that the construction of the SYL canal was started only after an agreement entered into between Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan in the presence of the then Prime Minister (Indira Gandhi) on December 13, 1981, and as a consequence both Haryana and Punjab had withdrawn their suits relating to the sharing of waters under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.
The court also rejected Punjab’s plea challenging the validity of Section 14 of the Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956, saying the state has not disclosed any “cause of action” in this regard either.
The Bench made it clear that its decree was not based on the quantum of water that may be made available to Haryana. In this context, the plea of Punjab that its complaint with regard to sharing of water is pending before the Water Disputes Tribunal, would not apply so far as the construction of the canal is concerned.
“Nor was the decree based on the Punjab Settlement. It was noted that the parties had acted on the agreement (for construction of the canal) and that despite the fact that Punjab sought to reopen the agreement of December 13, 1981, insofar as it related to the quantum of water to be shared between the two states under Paragraph 9.1 and 9.2 of the Punjab Settlement, the construction of the SYL canal under Paragraph 9.3 remained undisputed,” the court held.
