3 min readMay 22, 2025 06:28 PM IST
First published on: May 22, 2025 at 06:14 PM IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Thursday heard detailed arguments in Punjab’s review plea challenging a May 6 direction by the court, which had asked the state to release additional water to Haryana as per discussions in a May 2 meeting convened by the Union home secretary.
Appearing before the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, Punjab’s counsel, Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh Garry, accused the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), the Union government, and Haryana of “material concealment” of facts that allegedly misled the court into issuing the direction.
Listing three objections, Singh submitted that the May 2 meeting was not convened with the agenda of releasing additional water to Haryana; second, that the authority which called the meeting lacked the competence to take such a decision, as only the Union power secretary is empowered to do so; and third, that the Government of India was already seized of the matter under Rule 7 of the 1974 Rules, a fact not disclosed at the time.
Punjab argued that the BBMB’s extraordinary board meeting on April 28, claimed by the BBMB to have not taken place due to a lack of quorum, had in fact been held and included detailed discussions. Punjab had objected to Haryana’s request to release 8,500 cusecs, agreeing to release up to 4,000 cusecs. With no consensus, the meeting ended without a resolution, after which Haryana approached the Centre for intervention under Rule 7.
Singh submitted that the BBMB chairman approved the referral of the dispute to the Centre on April 29 but failed to disclose this at the April 30 board meeting or the subsequent May 2 meeting. “The most important part of the concealment,” he argued, “was that BBMB and the Centre sought a judicial stamp of approval for a decision already under central consideration, without disclosing the same.”
He also contended that the May 2 meeting, called by the Union Home Secretary, was intended to address the law and order situation arising from water scarcity—not to decide the quantum of water to be released to Haryana.
Further, Singh questioned the absence of the minutes of the May 2 meeting, saying they were not recorded contemporaneously but created later, on May 9. “A half-page press note was handed over in court, and based on that, Your Lordships were persuaded to issue direction no. 3,” he submitted.
Singh noted that the court had recorded the absence of minutes for the May 2 meeting. “When Your Lordships asked for them, a document titled ‘record of discussion’ was produced on May 9. It is dated and signed on May 9—seven days after the meeting took place.”
Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, representing the Union of India, strongly denied the allegations. “There is no concealment, no misstatement. Everything has been placed on record. The state of Punjab is simply trying to discredit every other party,” he said.
Senior advocate Rajesh Garg, appearing for the BBMB, defended the board’s actions and said the dispute had been rightly referred to the Centre, which led to the May 2 meeting. He maintained that Punjab had not objected to central intervention at the time and that its current objections were “tactical, not technical.”
The bench adjourned the matter until Friday noon for further arguments, including submissions from Haryana.
Punjab had objected to Haryana’s request to release 8,500 cusecs, agreeing to release up to 4,000 cusecs. 
Share
