HC issues notice to Haryana on Punjab’s plea against order to release additional water

Senior advocate Gurminder Singh Garry, appearing for the Punjab government, alleged that the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), Haryana and the Centre had misled the court by concealing critical facts. He said Haryana has already drawn 105 per cent of its agreed quota—3.13 million acre feet (MAF) against 2.987 MAF—and that the situation prompting the emergency release no longer exists. Repair works on the Western Jamuna Canal, which was cited as the reason for the additional withdrawal, have been completed and the water sought was only for the period from April 24 to May 1, it said.

Punjab also argued that BBMB had no authority to issue an order on April 30 allowing additional water release, as the matter had already been referred to the Centre under Rule 7 of BBMB. The state objected to a May 2 meeting chaired by the Union home secretary, reiterating the direction for release, claiming only the Union power secretary has jurisdiction as per BBMB rules—a position later acknowledged by the Centre in a May 9 clarification.

The Punjab government further contended that the court was misled into believing that a formal decision had been taken by the Centre, when in fact only a press note was shared during the hearing. It also objected to a May 8 communication from the BBMB chairman warning of contempt action for non-compliance, calling it a misrepresentation of the court’s order.

Representing the Union government, Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain dismissed Punjab’s petition as “totally baseless,” arguing that there was “no legal ground” to recall or modify the May 6 order. “The order passed by this court is very clear. The only remedy is to challenge it in accordance with law, not to seek a review without any basis,” he said.

Jain told the court that two decisions had been taken—one by the BBMB on April 30, and another by the Union home secretary on May 2. “It is strange that the State of Punjab is neither complying with the decisions taken on April 30 and May 2, nor is it challenging them as per law,” he submitted. He clarified that the Union had not acted unilaterally on Haryana’s April 29 representation. “We did not entertain Haryana’s representation and instead asked that the BBMB convene a meeting, which was duly done on April 30,” he said.

Haryana Advocate General (AG) Pravindra Singh Chauhan, opposing Punjab’s plea, said the state’s current requirement now includes water for cotton sowing. “The demand is now for irrigation. The court’s…order should not be kept in abeyance,” he said, noting that Punjab was refusing to follow its first direction to provide security at Nangal dam and not interfere in BBMB operations.

The AG alleged that Punjab’s own minister had obstructed the functioning of BBMB, which had led the court to initiate contempt proceedings earlier.

BBMB counsel and senior advocate Amit Garg argued that the Punjab Police should have escorted the board chairman to Nangal to perform his duty instead of escorting him out. “They are supposed to act in aid of your lordship’s orders. They are finding a way out to wriggle out of those orders.”

The Haryana AG further argued that Punjab’s only aim was to delay the implementation of the order till May 20, when the kharif sowing season begins. “Whatever water I am getting now is not from Punjab’s share—it is based on technical committee recommendations,” he said.

The matter is now posted for hearing on May 20.