Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal (SYL Canal) Dispute

About Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal :

Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal (SYL Canal) is a 214 km water way proposed to connect the Sutlej River in Punjab to Yamuna canal in Haryana.122 kilometre stretch of it falls under Punjab and the remaining 92 kilometre is in Haryana. It starts at Palla village, near Delhi. The canal though designed to carry a maximum of 10, 500 cusecs of water, will actually carry 6, 500 cusecs of water from Punjab to Haryana, as per an agreement of water sharing.

The canal takes off from the tail of Anandpur Sahib Hydel Channel near Lohand Khad, a few miles away from Kiratpur Sahib in Ropar district and enters Haryana near Kapoori village in Patiala district.Besides water transfer, the canal will also cater to the irrigation needs of the agriculture based villages of Rupar and Patiala districts.

What is the Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal dispute ?

• On December 31,1981 Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan agreed to share water of Ravi, Beas and Satluj between them. This agreement also mentioned that the water would be shared with Delhi and J&K.
• It was agreed that Punjab would make the Satluj-Yamuna Link canal within the state within a time period of two years.
• The digging began in 1984. A major part of the canal was completed in the Punjab territory in 1990s itself, spending around 750 crores of rupees but somehow the project did not get over with.
• With the rise in terrorism in Punjab, the SYL canal became a debatable topic and the politicians started fighting about the water-sharing.
• However, the Supreme Court, in January 2002, ordered Punjab to move along with the digging of the SYL canal and passed a judgment by which the canal should be completed within a year time.
• In 2004, the Punjab assembly made the earlier agreement null and void through Punjab Termination of Agreements Act 2004 and declined to give any water to any other states, especially to Haryana.
• On July 22, 2004, the Centre sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on the validity of the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act by making a Presidential reference under Article 143 of the Constitution.
• The matter was eventually taken up for hearing by the Supreme Court thus Punjab assembly passed the Punjab Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Land (Rehabilitation and Re-vesting of Proprietary Rights) Bill, 2016 and tried to cancel the land acquisition for the SYL canal and return it to farmers if they paid back the compensation.
• Supreme Court passed an order to maintain status quo.
• But even after that, the Punjab assembly has unanimously passed a resolution that the SYL canal cannot be allowed to be built.
• Punjab defends its act, stating that under Article 143, the Supreme Court has only advisory functions, and hence cannot pass an assumptive interim order.
• The canal comes under the Bakra- Baes Management Board, BBMB, constituted under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which is a central legislation, (like the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation act, creating Telangana).

What is Eradi Tribunal?

• The Punjab Settlement was signed on July 24, 1985, in New Delhi between then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) chief Sant Harcharan Singh Longowal. The accord included provisions related to the Ravi-Beas water sharing. It was agreed that the construction of the SYL Canal would be completed by August 15, 1986; claims of Punjab and Haryana regarding their shares in the remaining water would be referred for adjudication by a tribunal presided over by a Supreme Court judge. A tribunal under Justice V Balakrishna Eradi was set up that year.
• Thus it was entrusted with the task to specify the quantum of Ravi-Beas waters to be distributed among Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan.

Why is Punjab against the SYL canal ?

• To their merit, the political leadership of Punjab, including current Chief Minister Amarinder Singh and former CM Parkash Singh Badal, have been asserting that the state has no surplus water to give to Haryana.
• Punjab states that the SYL share of water to Haryana was based on the 1920 figures and at present the figure presents an all together different picture.
• They also claim that Punjab needed more water than its younger brother, Haryana, owing to the pivotal role of surface irrigation in the state’s agricultural sector.

Haryana’s argument :

• The Haryana claims lies on the theory that it is a water-deficient state and has stated that for long it has been destitute for more than half of its legitimate share of 3.50 MAF which is in surplus in the Ravi-Beas water, which has lead to a reduction in the agriculture production.

Validity of a state law by-passing Supreme Court judgement :

• By our understanding and going through precedents, such a law is ultra-vires the constitution.
• We have seen it in the 2015 judgement on Mullaperiyar dam case. The Kerala legislature had passed an act to by-pass an adverse 2006 SC judgement on the dam. In 2015, SC declared the act to be ultra-vires.
• In the present SYL case though, an additional condition is that the SC is hearing the matter within the contours of article 143 of the constitution (regarding the Presidential reference).
• Such a report is only advisory in nature, which the President is free to follow or not to follow ( Keshav Singh case, 1975); and hence it cannot issue a binding order saying the state law is ultra-vires. If the Supreme Court indeed pronounces such a verdict, it would be venturing in to the unchartered waters for the first time.
• Further, Contempt of Court provisions, can also be invoked by the court against the Punjab assembly, for not heeding to its directive.

Time Limit for Presidential Reference :

• The SYL issue was referred to the Supreme Court, under Article 143, in 2004.
• Under Article 143 (1), it is discretionary for the Supreme Court to answer or not to answer the questions put to it (held so in Kerala Education Bill case, 1957). But for those references under 143 (2), it is bound to give advice. Here it is under Article 143 (1) only.
• Also there is no time limit mentioned for disposing off the request.
• In this case, the court took 12 years to take up the matter.

What is the real issue ?

• It is to be noted that there is no dispute about the use of Sutlej waters.
• There is a real but fairly delimited dispute about water from the Ravi-Beas.
• It was agreed upon right from the beginning that the pre-existing usage of water by Punjab and Rajasthan (2.3 and 1.1 MAF [million acre-feet], respectively) would not be touched. The dispute is about the quantum of extra water available for distribution and about the share of the respective States.

Solution :

• Leaders and parties from Punjab must step back from the extra-constitutional path of unilateral action and instead negotiate on the share of Ravi-Beas water.
• Leaders from Haryana must step back from their demands of a share of water; instead, they should focus on swift and assured implementation of whatever is agreed upon.
• The Centre should step forward and bring both States to the negotiating table.
• The issue needs a political solution, as even Supreme Court appears to be in a dilemma.
• The resolution could take a legal route also.

Conclusion :

• We must acknowledge that water is a real issue for all the States but we must also acknowledge that the water requirement is overstated by all parties to the dispute. What is stated as “need” is not the minimum requirement for growing crops suited for this agro-climatic zone, but for water-intensive crops unknown to this region. Ecologists have long been warning us about unsustainable water-use practices in this region. It is time for the leaders to show wisdom and non-partisanship, giving due credits to the claims of all contending parties involved.

By: Harman Sandhu