New Delhi, September 20
The Supreme Court today adjourned hearing for six weeks on the Presidential reference against Punjab’s Act, terminating the water accords with the neighbouring states as Rajasthan and Jammu and Kashmir failed to file replies even as Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi termed the action of the Punjab Government as violative of the Constitution and the principle of federalism.
A five-Judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice R C Lahoti, directed the counsel of Rajasthan and Jammu and Kashmir to submit their replies within a month, while ordering listing of the matter for further hearing after six weeks. The court also allowed Punjab to file within four weeks additional affidavit in reply to Haryana’s 13-volume response to the Presidential reference, seeking the opinion of the apex court on the validity of “The Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004.”
The Bench, comprising Mr Justice N Santosh Hegde, Mr Justice Y K Sabharwal, Ms Justice Ruma Pal and Mr Justice S N Variava, rejected an intervention application of Iqbal Singh, a farmer from Punjab, seeking to implead himself as a party in the case. The court said it did not “deem fit” to entertain a petition by an individual in a case which had come before the Bench through Presidential reference.
Punjab’s counsel, senior advocate Rajiv Dhawan, told the court that
though the state government had submitted its reply, it would like to file an additional affidavit after perusing the 13-volume response of Haryana, which included certain documents in support of its plea.
Punjab’s three aggrieved neighbours — Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi — which so far have submitted their replies, termed “The Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, passed by the Punjab Government in the state Assembly on July 12, as against “the Constitution as well as basic principles of federalism and the rule of law.”
In its para-wise reply to the four-point questions raised in the Presidential reference, Haryana said the Act passed by Punjab was without legislative competence and contrary to the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, the Punjab Reorganistion Act, 1966, the Centre’s statutory order of March 24, 1976, and the Water Sharing Agreement of December 31, 1981.
Himachal Pradesh in its affidavit filed by its Additional Advocate General (AAG) J S Attri, stated that Punjab had no power to pass a legislation to unilateraly terminate the water agreements with the neighbouring states.
The Act passed by the Punjab Government was “violative” of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, because a state Assembly had no power to override the provisions of a legislation passed by Parliament, the Himachal Government in its affidavit said.
By terminating the water accords with the neighbouring states since 1981, at least three accords of Himachal with Punjab would be adversely affected, it said.
Punjab in its affidavit had justified the termination of water accords with the neighbouring states on the ground that it was in consistent with the legal position on the allocation of river waters to the neighbouring states.
The Delhi Government also termed the Punjab’s legislation as “illegal and unconstitutional”.
