M A I N   N E W S

SYL canal: water not an issue, says SC

New Delhi, June 13
Even as the recent Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal verdict has rekindled the volatile water issue between Punjab and Haryana, the Supreme Court in its June 4 judgement has observed that the decree did not relate to the ‘’quantum of water’’ to be shared between the two states.

While directing construction of the remaining portion of the canal in Punjab as over Rs 700 crore had already been spent over the project, the apex court made it clear that the issue of construction of the canal was not a ‘’water dispute’’ within the meaning of Article 262 of the Constitution.

‘’Therefore the fact that Punjab’s complaint is pending under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956 or, that, Haryana may, in future, be entitled to more water is immaterial,’’ a Division Bench comprising Ms Justice Ruma Pal and Mr Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi said in the judgement.

In the 78-page order, the Bench further reminded that, ‘’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 processes and not set such processes at naught only to gain political mileage.’’

However, hectic political parleys and meetings over the implementation of the June 4 verdict has shown that both the governments are eager to derive political mileage by bringing up the sensitive issue of water.

While Haryana has expressed joy that it would be getting its rightful share, Punjab has been contending that the quantum of waters to be shared was against internationally accepted riparian principles.

Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reportedly to apprise him of the fact that over the last 18 years, the circumstances had changed with availability of surplus Ravi-Beas waters falling from 17.17 million acre feet to 14.37 million acre feet.

Raking up the issue of disproportionate share for which he has already sought review before a Tribunal, Captain Singh has been contending that since all assets were divided in a 60:40 ratio during the reorganisation of erstwhile Punjab, sharing of water too should be in the same ratio.

Continuing with the water debate following the verdict, Haryana on the other hand, has said that their share already stood reduced from 67 to 48 per cent due to additional allocation from its share to the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Rajasthan in 1994.

Back home, political parties in both the states have expressed solidarity over the issue of water — following a judgement which did not at all reflect upon the quantum of water to be used by them — saying it was a matter linked with the interest of farmers.

On June 10, the Shiromani Akali Dal threatened an agitation against the construction and said that it would not allow “a drop of water’’ to go out of the state. In another meeting, the Bharati Kisan Union decided to recruit volunteers to offer resistance to the construction of the SYL canal. — UNI