skip to content
Advertisement
Premium
This is an archive article published on July 10, 2004

Capt digs up 131-yr-old Act to retain SYL

Punjab CM Amarinder Singh today discussed the Supreme Court judgment on SYL canal construction with Union Water Resources Minister Priya Ran...

.

Punjab CM Amarinder Singh today discussed the Supreme Court judgment on SYL canal construction with Union Water Resources Minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi as his government works on an alternative — an amendment that makes it mandatory for work on such a canal to be sanctioned by the Assembly.

Singh is likely to meet former attorney-general Soli Sorabjee tomorrow.

An amendment in the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act 1873 would prevent construction, repair or maintenance of a new canal for taking water beyond the boundary of Punjab unless it is passed by the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. The state government is already trying to bring in a Bill aimed at strengthening the state’s defence in view of the Supreme Court’s directive to hand over SYL canal construction work to a Central agency. Sorabjee is helping in drafting this Bill which is reportedly aimed at nullifying the contractual obligation imposed by the December 31, 1981 agreement, inked by then PM Indira Gandhi and CMs of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan.

Story continues below this ad

Senior officials said amendment to the 1873 Act was being considered though a final view is yet to emerge. However, the ramifications of the Bill extend not only to Haryana, the state against whom Punjab is pitted on the SYL question, but also Rajasthan.

The proposal involves adding an additional clause (Section 55A, after Section 55) to Part VII of Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. The proposed amendment says ‘‘no new canal or water channel shall be constructed, repaired or maintained for taking water beyond the boundaries of the State of Punjab without a resolution of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha sanctioning the design, capacity and construction’’.

Sources said such a proposal would have been most effective if mooted after the 1956 Inter-State Water Disputes Act but now it could face opposition from other states.

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement