Tribune News Service
New Delhi, July 28
The Supreme Court on Tuesday requested the Chief Ministers of Punjab and Haryana to try a negotiated settlement on the much-prolonged Sutlej-Yamuna hyperlink (SYL) problem.
A Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra stated talks ought to be held on the highest political degree. The Bench needed the 2 states to obviously inform it if they may remedy it via negotiations or not. Further listening to is prone to be held within the third week of August.
At the foundation of the issue is the controversial 1981 water-sharing settlement after Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966. For efficient allocation of water, SYL Canal was to be constructed and the 2 states had been required to assemble their parts inside their territories.
While Haryana constructed its portion of SYL canal, after the preliminary section, Punjab stopped the work, resulting in a number of circumstances.
In 2004, the Congress authorities in Punjab got here out with the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act to terminate the 1981 settlement and all different pacts regarding sharing waters of the Ravi and Beas rivers.
In 2002, the highest courtroom had decreed Haryana’s swimsuit and ordered Punjab to honour its commitments on water sharing.
Punjab filed an unique swimsuit that was rejected in 2004 by the Supreme Court which requested the Centre to take over the remaining infrastructure work of the SYL canal venture.
In November 2016, the highest courtroom had declared the regulation handed by the Punjab Assembly in 2004 terminating the SYL canal water-sharing settlement with neighbouring states unconstitutional. It had answered within the unfavorable all 4 questions referred to it in a Presidential Reference.
But in early 2017, Punjab returned land—on which canal was to be constructed—to the landowners.
The Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that it didn’t intend to revisit the info and points already adjudicated upon. The decree that has been handed must be executed and it shouldn’t be handled like a paper decree, it had stated.
Haryana has maintained that it can’t be made to attend lengthy for development of the canal. Any additional delay in execution of the highest courtroom’s decree handed in 2002 would result in individuals shedding religion within the judicial system, it has stated.
On the opposite hand, Punjab says the decree was not executable and the state required time to argue its case. It has instructed the Supreme Court that the canal land returned to the landowners couldn’t be recovered.
Punjab has contended that there have been difficulties in implementation of the courtroom’s decree. The decree was premised on the truth that there was sufficient water within the river. But now there may be not a lot water stream, making it unimaginable to present impact to it.