In a stern criticism, the Supreme Court of India criticized the Punjab government for its persistent opposition to the completion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal, terming it a “clear case of highhandedness.” The top court made these observations while hearing a long-pending case between Punjab and Haryana over the sharing of river waters.
The hearing, which took place before a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra, and Aravind Kumar, was part of a decades-long legal battle over the SYL Canal—an infrastructure project originally designed to facilitate water sharing between the two northern states. The Court expressed strong disapproval of Punjab’s failure to cooperate despite repeated judicial directives.
“Clear Case of Highhandedness”
The bench said it was dismayed by Punjab’s stance, pointing out that the state’s repeated refusal to honor previous decisions and its attempts to obstruct the canal’s progress were not just non-compliant but also amounted to disregard for the rule of law.
“This is a clear case of highhandedness. The State is refusing to obey the orders of this Court,” the bench observed.
The Court emphasized that Punjab could not simply opt out of its obligations under an existing agreement that had been upheld through multiple legal orders.
Background: What Is the SYL Canal Dispute?
The SYL Canal project was initiated so that Haryana could receive its allocated share of river waters from the Sutlej River, as per an agreement reached among Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan in 1981. However, construction was put on hold due to fierce political opposition and protests in Punjab, for which the project has been a contentious point for years.
The issue has grown over the years into a high-profile political and legal case, with Punjab consistently challenging its commitments. In 2004, Punjab enacted the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, trying to invalidate the agreement, which was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Haryana’s Stand
The Haryana government has always appealed to the Court to exercise its right to water by forcing Punjab to finish the construction of the canal. Haryana, during the hearing, reiterated that in spite of clear judicial orders, Punjab has made no significant moves towards finishing its part of the canal.
Supreme Court’s Direction
The Court signaled that it would not allow further delays and hinted at the possibility of issuing enforceable directions if Punjab failed to act. It also emphasized the need for cooperation among states on such a crucial national asset and warned against politicizing the issue.
The matter has now been scheduled for hearing, with the court most likely to address possible remedial action in case Punjab continues to be non-compliant.
The SYL Canal controversy continues to be an inter-state lightning rod for controversy in India. The Supreme Court’s most recent remarks serve to underscore the rising frustration of the judiciary with continued non-compliance and could yet be a game-changer in efforts to resolve one of the country’s most contentious water-sharing conflicts.
