Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, February 22

The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it clear that the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal has to be constructed and asked the governments of Punjab and Haryana to maintain law and order at any cost in their respective states.

A Bench headed by Justice PC Ghose said: “We are at a stage where the decree has to be executed.”

It also asked the Centre to maintain surveillance and oversight in view of the impending march by Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) activists that could potentially create a law and order problem. The court’s comments came after senior counsel Ram Jethmalani and RS Suri requested on behalf of the Punjab Government that a political solution be attempted and the Centre should act as an arbitrator.

(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)

Responding to Jethmalani’s suggestion, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar said: “I (Centre) can’t sit in judgment over the decree... If both states approach us, only then we can mediate...”

Jethmalani said the water-sharing agreement was signed in 1981 and the quantity of water flow had significantly decreased since then. Therefore, it wasn’t possible now to execute it.

The Bench said the canal had to be constructed first. Whether the water was there or not or it’ll be there only in the rainy season or how much quantity was being maintained could be sorted out later.

At the very outset of the hearing, Jethmalani told the Bench that over one lakh people had planned a march into Punjab to start digging at the canal construction site and could lead to violence. He accused the Haryana Government of being complicit for having granted permission to hold the march.

“Let’s hope good sense will prevail. Violence will not take place... Lives will not be lost,” Jethmalani said.

Earlier, senior counsel Shyam Diwan said the Haryana Government was committed to maintaining law and order and Punjab should also be asked to ensure peace on their side.

The Bench asked both states to maintain status quo in terms of its earlier order and ensure there was no violence. Jethmalani wanted the issue to be heard after the Assembly poll results on March 11 but the Bench fixed March 2 to hear the arguments of the Punjab Government, which contended the decree in favour of Haryana could not be executed. Pointing out delay in the execution of the decree, the Bench said: “Enough is enough. Let’s complete it. We are keen to finish it…Let’s not keep it pending.”

In its affidavit filed before the hearing, Punjab had told the Supreme Court that the canal land that had been given back to the landowners could not be recovered.

The court had in November 2016 declared the law passed by the Punjab Assembly in 2004 terminating the SYL canal water-sharing agreement with neighbouring states as unconstitutional. It had answered in the negative all four questions referred to it in a Presidential Reference.

But on Wednesday, the Solicitor General pointed out that the court’s order on the Presidential Reference did not specifically declare the 2004 Act invalid. It needed to be formally declared unconstitutional by the court before steps were taken for construction of SYL canal, Kumar said.

The court said it would pass an order on it after taking into consideration all contentions of the parties.