SC Ruling On Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal – Free PDF Download

Q) Consider the following statements regarding inter-state water dispute

1. Article 262 of the constitution empowers the state legislatures to make laws for the adjudication of inter-state water dispute.
2. The Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956 was enacted to deal with inter-state water disputes.
3. The members of tribunal are appointed by the President of India.

Which of the statement given above is / are correct.

1. 1 & 2 only
2. 2 & 3 only
3. 2 only
4. All of the above

 HISTORY OF SYL CANAL

• The state of Haryana was created from Punjab in 1966.
• This led to the problem of giving Haryana its share of river waters.
• GOI issued a notification on March 24, 1976 and Haryana was allocated 3.5 MAF of waters.
• The total length of the canal was proposed to be 212 km. of which 121 km. in Punjab & 91 km. in Haryana.
• Haryana completed the work in June 1980.
• However, Punjab did not start the work.
• In 1981 agreement was entered among Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan to re-allocate the waters of Ravi and Beas.
• To enable Haryana to use its share of waters, Union Government started Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal Project in 1982.
• This project was the product of 1981 agreement.

RAJIV-LONGOWAL ACCORD

• After laying the foundation, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) launched an agitation against the canal under the leadership of Sant Harchand Singh Longowal.
• In August 1982, the agitation was converted into a “Dharam Yudh (holy war)”.
• The agitation took a violent turn, plunging the state into chaos.
• On July 24, 1985, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Longowal signed the Punjab accord in New Delhi.
• The agreement called for completion of the canal by August 1986.
• The SS Barnala-led SAD government started the work and 90% of it was completed.

BUT AGAIN CONSTRUCTION STOPPED

• The construction work stopped when Sikh militants gunned down two senior engineers and 35 labourers working on the canal.
• A decision was taken to rope in the Border Roads Organisation, but again nothing moved forward.
• In 1996, Haryana filed a plea in the Supreme Court, seeking directions for Punjab to complete the canal.

THE PUNJAB TERMINATION OF AGREEMENTS ACT,2004

• Supreme Court in January 2002 and June 2004, ordered the remaining portion of the canal to be completed.
• In response to SC order, Punjab Assembly passed The Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, cancelling its water-sharing agreements.

SC SCRAPPING THE ACT

• In March 2016 SC took up the matter.
• Meanwhile the Punjab legislature passed another act, the Punjab SutlejYamuna Link Canal (Rehabilitation and Re-vesting of Proprietary Rights) Bill 2016, which seeks to restore the land acquired for the canal, back to the farmers free of cost.
• Even though the Governor did not give assent to the bill.
• After that SC scrapped the 2004 act and asked to maintain the status quo.

SO WHAT NOW?

• Supreme Court recently directed the states of Punjab and Haryana and the Centre to resolve the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal issue by Sept. 3.
• The apex court directed the two states and the Centre to convene a meeting and find an amicable solution to the issue.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PUNJAB:-

• The Punjab govt. can not unilaterally cancel the Inter-state water sharing agreement which was signed among states and Centre.

ARGUMENTS FOR PUNJAB:-

• Ground realities over past six decades have completely changed the scenario regarding water availability in Punjab.

 WAY FORWARD

• There seems to be distrust and short-sightedness behind the competitive politics over the SYL canal.
• Both States have serious water issues such as sinking water table due to over exploitation, pollution of water resources etc.
• Hence there is a need to move away from unsustainable and waterintensive cropping pattern.
• At the same time Punjab can’t unilaterally cancel the agreement and hence must cooperate with Haryana as it was part of Punjab.

Q) Consider the following statements regarding inter-state water dispute

1. Article 262 of the constitution empowers the state legislatures to make laws for the adjudication of inter-state water dispute.
2. The Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956 was enacted to deal with inter-state water disputes.
3. The members of tribunal are appointed by the President of India.

Which of the statement given above is / are correct.

1. 1 & 2 only
2. 2 & 3 only
3. 2 only
4. All of the above

Latest Burning Issues | Free PDF

Sharing is caring!