Maintain status quo on Satluj-Yamuna Link canal: SC tells Punjab govt

[related-post]

“Prima facie, it appears that an effort has been made to see that execution of a decree of this Court is being made inexecutable and this Court cannot be a silent spectator…therefore, we direct that status quo shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the properties…,” said the five-judge Constitution Bench.

The Bench said the status quo order will operate with respect to “lands, works, property and portions of the canal and all lands within the alignment of the SYL canal within the territories of Punjab” covered by its previous judgments.

The court also made the Union Home Secretary, along with the Chief Secretary and Director General of Punjab Police, accountable as court receivers to ensure its order is complied with.

On Haryana’s application demanding an ad-interim protection by appointing the court receiver and restraining the publication of the assent to the Punjab government’s bill in gazette notification, the Bench sought a formal response from Punjab by March 28.

For now, the court’s order puts a hurdle in the Punjab government’s attempt to wriggle out of the agreement to enable Haryana to use its share of water of the Satluj and its tributary Beas after constructing the 214-km SYL canal. With Assembly elections due next year, the SAD-BJP government in Punjab has sought to denotify more than 3,900 acres acquired for construction of the SYL and offer the land to farmers.

The crisis over the canal issue intensified when Punjab returned a Rs 191.75 crore-cheque to the Manohar Lal Khattar government. Punjab had received the amount for construction of the proposed canal.

Appearing for Haryana, senior advocate Shyam Diwan had argued that the Punjab Assembly had on March 14 passed a Bill against the construction of SYL canal but the Bill, which is yet to get the Governor’s assent, will negate the apex court’s 2004 decree calling for unhindered construction. He referred to news reports with photographs that JCB and earth-moving equipment have been arranged for levelling the land on Punjab’s part of the canal.

Appearing for Punjab, senior advocates Ram Jethmalani and Rajeev Dhawan submitted that the apex court has only advisory jurisdiction and cannot pass interim orders as there was no prima facie case made out. The arguments of the opposite side, they maintained, was based on media reports.

However, Dhawan’s submission on media reports did not cut much ice with the Bench, which shot back, “Do you think what has been stated in the newspapers is incorrect?” “You could have done something on Monday (the day the Bill was passed in Punjab Assembly),” the Bench said, adding that if anything happens in between “we will modify our order.”

Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, representing the Centre, had also expressed reservations against any interim order and sought an adjournment. But the bench said the order was necessitated in view of the facts and circumstances. The court will hear the matter next on March 31.