New Delhi, July 28: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain the Punjab government’s petition challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that directed it to release an additional 4,500 cusecs of water to Haryana, as per a central government-mediated decision taken on May 2.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta turned down the plea by Punjab, asking the state to respect the consensus decision reached under the chairmanship of the Union Home Secretary. The court observed that the matter had already been dealt with appropriately by the High Court, and further judicial intervention was unwarranted at this stage.
Appearing for Punjab, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the state had already provided 4,000 cusecs of additional water to Haryana on “humanitarian grounds” and accused Haryana of drawing more than its entitlement—exceeding 100 percent. “It is a matter of emotive importance for both states,” Singhvi told the bench, underscoring Punjab’s water constraints and the political sensitivity surrounding the issue.
The dispute traces back to a decision made during a meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary on May 2, where it was resolved that Punjab would release an additional 4,500 cusecs of water to Haryana via the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) to meet the latter’s irrigation and drinking water needs.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the BBMB, countered Punjab’s claims and defended the board’s decision as one made after consulting all stakeholders. He raised strong objections to the deployment of Punjab Police personnel at the Bhakra Nangal dam site, calling it inappropriate and potentially disruptive to the functioning of a national asset.
“One state deploying police at the dam to prevent diversion of water is not in good taste,” Mehta told the court. “Ultimately, we or they — these are our people. Haryana or Punjab, they are all citizens of India.”
The High Court had earlier restrained Punjab and its functionaries, including its police force, from interfering in the daily operations of the Bhakra Nangal dam and the Lohand control room, both of which are critical to the BBMB’s water regulation efforts.
Reaffirming this stance, the Supreme Court did not grant Punjab any relief and implied that compliance with inter-state agreements and administrative decisions was essential to ensure fair and uninterrupted water supply, especially during the peak agricultural season.
The verdict is a blow to the Bhagwant Mann-led AAP government in Punjab, which is already facing mounting pressure over depleting water levels in canals and growing unrest among farmers.
The issue of water-sharing between Punjab and Haryana has remained one of the most contentious inter-state disputes in northern India, particularly around the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, which continues to spark political and legal wrangling. Monday’s decision is likely to further intensify political rhetoric as both states prepare for upcoming legislative and local elections.
