Chandigarh: The Supreme Court will hear the contentious Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal issue on January 19, Union Jal Shakti Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat called a meeting Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and his Haryana counterpart Manohar Lal Khattar on Wednesday to resolve the issue.
This will be the second meeting of the Chief Ministers of the two neighboring states on this issue after the Supreme Court. Asked Khattar and Mann were supposed to meet on September 6 last year under the aegis of the Union Jal Shakti Ministry to discuss an amicable solution to the decades-old issue.
both CM met up with in Chandigarh on October 14, but the meeting was inconclusive Mann said his state did not have “a drop of water to share with Haryana” and Khattar later said it was their “last meeting” on the issue.
With both the states sticking to their respective stand, it will be interesting to see whether the Union Ministers can bring the two Chief Ministers to an agreement or not.
So, what is the SYL canal issue that has been a bone of contention between the two states for over four decades? ThePrint states:
water war
When Punjab’s resources – prior to its reorganization in 1966 – were to be divided between the two states, the terms of the sharing of the waters of the other two rivers, the Ravi and the Beas, were left undecided.
However, citing riparian principles, Punjab opposed the sharing of the waters of the two rivers with Haryana. principle of riparian water rights There is a system under which the owner of the land adjacent to the water body has the right to use the water. Punjab also says that it does not have surplus water to share with Haryana.
A decade after the reorganization of Punjab, the Center issued a notification in 1976 that the two states would receive 3.5 million acre-feet (MAF) of water.
Again on 31 December 1981 Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan signed an agreement Reallocating the waters of Ravi and Beas ‘in the overall national interest and for optimum use of water’. The agreement was based on revaluation of available water. The water flow in Beas and Ravi was estimated at 17.17 MAF. Out of this, 4.22 MAF was allocated to Punjab, 3.5 MAF to Haryana and 8.6 MAF to Rajasthan through an agreement between the three states.
Sutlej Yamuna Link CanalThe 211 km long proposed canal connecting Sutlej and Yamuna was planned in 1966 after separating Haryana from Punjab. While 121 km of the canal was to be built in Punjab, and 90 km falls in Haryana.
While Haryana completed the project in its area by June 1980.Although work in Punjab began in 1982, it was halted due to opposition from the opposition Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD).
Read also: Polavaram dam funding picks up after PM-CM meetings, but project unlikely to meet deadline
Canal, stalled work and insurgency
The construction work of SYL canal was launched On April 8, 1982, by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi near Kapuri village in Patiala district of Punjab. Due to this, Akali Dal started Kapuri Morcha in protest against SYL canal.
In July 1985, then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi signed an accord with SAD chief Harchand Singh Longowal, agreeing to set up a new tribunal to assess the sharing of water.
next year, the The Ravi and Beas Water Tribunal was set up under the chairmanship of Supreme Court Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi For verification of quantum of water utilization claimed by Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan in respect of their share in balance water.
The Ravi and Beas Water Tribunal or Eradi Tribunal was set up under the chairmanship of Supreme Court Justice V Balakrishna Eradi. In 1987, it recommended That the shares of Punjab and Haryana be increased to 5 MAF and 3.83 MAF respectively.
Soon, Punjab saw a rise in militancy and canal construction became a major issue between the two states. terrorists were killed longowal A month after signing the pact with Rajiv Gandhi.
Several laborers working on the project were shot dead in 1988 near Majat villageThe construction work is pointing towards stalling. In 1990, terrorists killed Chief Engineer ML Sekhri and Superintending Engineer Avtar Singh Aulakh.
Read also: The Sardar Sarovar project in drought-prone Kutch is a ‘dream come true’. but not for all farmers
in the top court
In 1996, the Haryana government approached the Supreme Court over the issue.
In 2002, the apex court directed Punjab to continue work on the SYL and complete it within a year. However, the state filed a review against the SC order but The petition was dismissed.
In 2004, following orders from the apex court, the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) was appointed to take over the canal work from the Punjab government. However, the Punjab Assembly passed the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act (PTAA), which nullified all its river water agreements with neighboring states. The then President APJ Abdul Kalam Specified The bill went to the Supreme Court that same year to decide on its legality.
The matter came up for hearing in the apex court in 2016. In response to a Presidential reference, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on November 10, 2016, Cancel PTAA, a law that unilaterally terminated Punjab’s water sharing agreement with Haryana.
The apex court said, “The Punjab Act cannot be said to be in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution and by virtue of the said Act, the State of Punjab cannot set aside the judgment and decree delivered herein and put an end to the December 1981 Accord.” “
However, a few days later, Punjab denotified 5,376 acres of land that had been acquired for the canal and announced to return it to its original owners free of cost.
In February 2017, SC issued another order stick to my earlier decision that the construction of SYL should be executed and asked Haryana and Punjab to maintain law and order “at any cost”.
“We direct that peace should prevail in Punjab and Haryana. Every citizen of this country should understand that when the proceedings are going on in the court, there should be no agitation on the pending issue. orderedgiving both states time till September to reach an agreement and warned Punjab not to “adopt delaying tactics”.
(Editing by Anumeha Saxena)
Read also: In deadly dry Bundelkhand, the Ken-Betwa link finally seems real. But critics have questions, fears