Front Page

Constitution Bench to hear Presidential reference on Punjab law

NEW DELHI: A five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will hear next month a Presidential reference on the controversial law enacted by the Punjab Government nullifying all agreements on sharing of inter-State river waters.

A three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan, Justice R. V. Raveendran and Justice J. M. Panchal posted the matter for hearing in the week beginning April 21 after senior counsel Ashok Desai, appearing for Haryana, pleaded for urgent hearing, saying the matter had already been referred to the Constitution Bench.

The reference made in 2004 by the then President under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution seeks the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on the controversial legislation enacted to prevent implementation of the apex court judgment, viz., whether the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004, and the provisions thereof are in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India;

Whether the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, and the provisions thereof are in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, and the Notification dated March 24, 1976, issued thereunder;

Whether the State of Punjab has validly terminated the agreement dated December 31, 1981, and all other agreements relating to the Ravi-Beas waters and is discharged from its obligation under the said agreement(s); and whether in view of the provisions of the Act, the State of Punjab is discharged from its obligations flowing from the judgment and decree dated January 15, 2002.

In its response, Punjab justified its law and asserted that its obligation on implementation of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal stood discharged under this law.

“The Act of 2004,” it said, “does not disturb the existing actual utilisation of Haryana and Rajasthan of 1.62 million acre feet (MAF) and Rajasthan, 7.2 MAF for the drinking water supplies of 0.2 MAF to the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Punjab Government was competent to enact the legislation since Parliament had not made any law under the Union List of the Constitution insofar as Ravi and Beas waters were concerned.”

Haryana said the Punjab act violated the provisions of the Constitution as well as the basic principles and tenets concerning federalism and rule of law.

“The Act,” it argued, “lacks legislative competence and is a colourable piece of legislation intended only to project a flimsy legal cover for the State of Punjab to continue with its defiant and contumacious conduct against the apex court and the Constitution.”

In its response, Delhi said the Punjab act was unconstitutional and “it sets up a bad precedent which, if followed by other States, supplying water to Delhi would seriously impair the water supply system in the National Capital Territory of Delhi affecting the life and liberty of the people”.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu