The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the governments of Punjab and Haryana to cooperate with the Centre for an amicable solution to the decades-old dispute over the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih said it was an "act of high-handedness" that land which was already acquired for the construction of the canal was de-notified in Punjab.
The apex court pointed out that such matters couldn't be decided only on the basis of law and ground realities couldn't be ignored as other factors, having wider ramifications, had to be considered.
Referring to a recent affidavit filed by the Centre, the bench said it appeared the Centre already took effective steps to resolve the issue amicably.
"In that view of the matter, we direct both the states to cooperate with the Union of India in arriving at an amicable solution. In case the issue is not resolved amicably between the parties, we propose to take up the matter on August 13," the bench said.
Additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, said pursuant to the top court's direction, the government tried to mediate between the parties with meetings being held.
"We have made efforts for mediation but the states have to walk the talk," Bhati said.
The SYL canal was conceptualised for the effective allocation of water from the Ravi and Beas rivers. The project envisaged a 214-kilometer canal, of which 122 kilometer was to be constructed in Punjab and 92 kilometer in Haryana.
Haryana completed the project in its territory, but Punjab, which launched the construction work in 1982, shelved it later.
With the dispute lingering on for decades, the top court on January 15, 2002, ruled in favour of Haryana in a suit filed by it in 1996 and directed the Punjab government to construct its portion of the SYL canal.
On Tuesday, senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Haryana, said the issue related to the execution of the decree passed by the court.
"These matters can't be decided only on law. We also have to take into consideration other factors. It is not like a paper decree between two brothers that half of the land is to be allotted to one and half of the land is to be allotted to the other," the bench observed.
The top court went on, "There are wider ramifications. We can't ignore the ground realities."
The bench was informed that lands acquired for construction of canal in Punjab were de-notified.
"Was it not an act of high-handedness that once a decree was passed for construction of the canal, they are de-notifying the land which is acquired for the purpose of construction of the canal?" the bench asked the Punjab's counsel.
"This is trying to defeat the decree of the court. It is a clear case of high-handedness," it added.
Based on the decree passed by the apex court, the bench noted that Haryana discharged its obligation and constructed the part of canal whereas Punjab for some reason or the other was avoiding to discharge its obligation.
Punjab's counsel said the issue over the canal's construction previously led to unrest in the border state, turning into a "very emotional issue" with the public.
Divan, on the other hand, insisted on abiding by court's orders.
The bench also dealt with an application filed by some land owners seeking clarification of a top court order asking parties to maintain status quo.
"The perusal of the material placed on record would clarify that issue before the court is with regard to the main SYL canal. The dispute does not pertain to internal network of canal which was to be constructed by the state of Punjab for distribution of water within Punjab," the bench said.
The status quo order, it said, would apply only to the land required for construction of SYL canal in Punjab to link it to the canal already constructed by Haryana.
In October 2023, the apex court asked the Centre to actively pursue the mediation process to resolve the dispute and passed several orders in the matter, including a verdict by a five-judge constitution bench that said Punjab ought to comply with its verdict and held as unconstitutional the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act (PTAA), 2004.
The Constitution bench pronounced the verdict on a 2004 Presidential reference.
The PTAA discharged the government of Punjab from its obligations under all agreements related to the waters of Ravi and Beas rivers.
A Presidential reference was made on July 22, 2004 seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court on the constitutional validity of PTAA.
© 2025