Why Punjab and Haryana HC will issue contempt of court notice against Punjab govt

It is the latest in the recent disagreement between the governments of Punjab and Haryana over water-sharing. Here is what to know.

What happened on Thursday?

On Thursday, workers of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) were led by Punjab Cabinet minister Harjot Bains in staging a dharna outside Sutlej Sadan, the BBMB guesthouse. They aimed to stop Tripathi from releasing water to Haryana, and locked him inside the rest house. He was later ‘rescued’ in a police vehicle and moved out.

The main gate of the resthouse was locked while the minister sat on a dharna for several hours. Later, Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann also arrived at the spot. The Punjab and Haryana High Court termed these events “unbelievable”.

A day prior, the court had restrained Punjab and its functionaries, including police personnel, from interfering in the day-to-day functioning, operation, and regulation of the Bhakra Nangal Dam.

What is the dispute between Punjab and Haryana over Bhakra-Nangal?

The Bhakra-Nangal project is among the earliest post-Independence river valley development projects, comprising dams on the Satluj – the Bhakra dam in Himachal Pradesh, and the Nangal dam in Punjab. The BBMB is tasked with distributing water between Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, and Delhi.

At the start of every accounting year (roughly September-August, depending on the monsoon), it determines how much water will be allocated to each state. This year, it allocated 5.512 million acre-feet (MAF) to Punjab, 2.987 MAF to Haryana, and 3.318 MAF to Rajasthan.

Punjab claims that Haryana has already withdrawn 3.110 MAF — or 104% of its share for the year. This is even as the water levels on the Ranjit Sagar (on River Ravi) and Pong dams are 16.9 and 31.87 feet lower than at the same time last year, mainly due to scant snowfall in the Himalayas this winter. The water level at the Bhakra dam is 12 feet lower than last year.

In a May 2 BBMB meeting, the Union Home Secretary asked Punjab and Haryana to resolve the issue. He suggested that Haryana borrow 4,500 cusecs (cubic foot per second) of water from Punjab and return it during the filling season. He asked the BBMB chairperson to call an emergency meeting with them.

Tripathi called the meeting the next day, but Punjab boycotted it and called it illegal, saying rules permit BBMB to call a meeting only after giving seven days’ notice. On Monday, the Punjab government called a special Vidhan Sabha session to pass a resolution against the BJP, which is in power at the Centre and three of the five BBMB states. It said the BJP was using the BBMB to divest Punjab of its “rightful share” of water.

CM Mann also said that for the last two years, they had told Haryana it was taking more water than its quota, and that it should use water judiciously. They also alerted Haryana to their own water shortage in May and June. Further, Punjab said that Haryana’s drinking water requirement is only 1,700 cusecs, and it is already giving them 4,000 cusecs of water on humanitarian grounds.

What did the HC rule?

Former Advocate General of Punjab, Gurminder Singh, submitted that the High Court had on May 6 directed the state to abide by the BBMB meeting’s May 2 decision.

He said the bench was given the impression that the release of 4,500 cusecs of extra water to Haryana over eight days to meet its urgent requirements was decided during the meeting, but that was not the case. He argued that the May 2 meeting dealt with law and order issues and had no bearing on water allotment.

However, the High Court said there was a prima facie case against the Punjab government as the state did not comply with a court order directing it not to interfere in the working of the BBMB. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said a notice would be issued to the Punjab Chief Secretary KAP Sinha and the Director General of Police Gaurav Yadav.

If Punjab assured compliance with the order, the court said it would hold its hand till Monday. “There is a judicial order that has been passed, rightly or wrongly. Until it is stayed or set aside, it stands and has to be complied with,” the court said. “We are not sending your officers to jail, we are only issuing notice,” it added.