Court name

Supreme Court of India

Judge
Ruma Pal
Venkatarama Reddi., P.
Reference number
JT 2004 (5) SC 72, 2004 (6) SCALE 75, (2004) 12 SCC 673
Language
English
Subject
Water, Land & soil
The Sutlej-Yamuna-Link Canal project owes its genesis to a Union government notification of March 24,
1976, under Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which provided for the division of
waters between Punjab and Haryana. The 214-kilometre-long SYL canal would be constructed with 122
km of it running through Punjab and the remaining 92 km through Haryana. The cost of the construction
was to be met by the Central government. The Haryana government completed its portion by 1980 but
the Punjab government failed to complete the portion falling in its territory. As early as 1979, Punjab
filed a suit challenging the Union government's notification. Since 1983, as many as seven deadlines
have gone unheeded. The first suit in the matter, filed by Haryana in the Supreme Court in 1979,
submitted that the court issue directions to the Punjab government to complete the construction of the
canal. Another suit, filed in September 1996, sought the issuance of directions to the Punjab/Union
government to ensure the completion of the canal at an early date. On January 15, 2002, the apex court
decreed the suit in favour of Haryana and issued a mandatory injunction to Punjab to complete the
construction of the canal and to make it functional within a year. In the event that Punjab failed to meet
the deadline, the Union government would have to get it done through its own agency as soon as
possible. Notwithstanding the urgency of the court's order and the long-standing nature of the problem,
there was little progress on the matter. On January 13, 2003, two days before the deadline was to
expire, Punjab filed a suit seeking to dissolve the obligation on its part to construct the canal. It cited
several reasons, including "changed circumstances" and the unconstitutionality of the Supreme Court
decree. Haryana filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, for the
rejection of the pliant and the summary dismissal of the suit. On August 13, Haryana filed a second
application seeking a direction to the Union government to carry out its obligations under the apex court
decree. On June 4, 2004 the apex Court announced its final verdict on the SYL issue. It directed the
Union government to mobilise a Central agency to take control of the canal works from Punjab within a
month from the date of the order; ordered Punjab to hand over the works to the Central agency
constituted by the Union government within two weeks; ordered the setting up of an empowered
committee to coordinate and facilitate the implementation of the decree within four weeks from the
date of the order; called for the construction of the remaining portion of the canal; and ordered the
Central and Punjab governments to provide adequate security for the staff of the Central agency. The
order makes some serious observations on the conduct of the Punjab government in the construction of
the canal. The court places the onus for the delay in the completion of the canal on Punjab, saying that it
had acted as a "super-judicial" body over the apex Court, by refusing to comply with the 2002 decree of
the Court. It also imposed the cost of litigation on Punjab. The Judges held Article 131 of the
Constitution had given the court the exclusive jurisdiction to decide such a dispute strictly on legal
considerations and in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the
construction of the canal was not a water dispute.