CHANDIGARH, May 9 – The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday observed that a prima facie case of contempt had been made out against the Punjab government for failing to comply with its directive to refrain from interfering in the functioning of the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB).
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said notices would be issued to Punjab’s Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, directing them to respond to the alleged defiance.
At the same time, the Bench granted a brief window for the state to comply. “We will hold our hand till Monday if the state gives an assurance of compliance,” the court said, reserving a detailed order for a later stage.
The court stressed the binding nature of judicial orders, irrespective of their correctness. “There is a judicial order that has been passed, rightly or wrongly. Until it is stayed or set aside, it stands and has to be complied with,” the Bench noted. It added that there appeared to be “some element of contempt” and that a formal reply was required from the state.
“We are not sending your officers to jail, we are only issuing notice,” the judges said, addressing senior advocate Gurminder Singh, who appeared for the Punjab government.
Defending the state’s actions, Singh argued that the court’s earlier direction, issued on May 6, asked Punjab to follow decisions taken in a May 2 meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary.
According to Singh, the court was led to believe that the release of an additional 4,500 cusecs of water to Haryana was agreed upon during that meeting, but no such decision was actually taken.
He contended that the meeting focused solely on law and order concerns and did not pertain to water allocation. Singh also asserted that Punjab had not interfered with BBMB’s routine operations.
However, Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain, appearing for the Centre alongside senior counsel Dheeraj Jain, countered the claim. He maintained that the issue of additional water release was, in fact, discussed during the May 2 meeting.
The Bench, after hearing both sides, took serious note of reports that the BBMB chairman had been physically obstructed from accessing the installation.
“The chairman himself has stated he was not allowed to enter and that the gates were locked by the public — this is unbelievable,” the court remarked.
With rising concerns over the state’s conduct, the court’s next move now hinges on Punjab’s response by Monday.
