Punjab Chief minister Amrinder Singh finally files a suit in the Indian Supreme Court against last year's illegal SYL construction order of two retiring bigoted Hindu-fundamentalist judges
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - After dillydalying for nearly a year - despite a dozen calls by us in this column in the past twelve months alone - occupied Punjab's Congress party Chief minister, Amrinder Singh, a scion of the infamous house of Patiala, has finally woken up from his stupor and filed a suit in the Indian Supreme Court yesterday, January 13, 2003, (under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution and Section 3 of the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956) which complaint half-heartedly challenges last year's illegal order by two corrupt bigoted retiring Hindu judges, G. B. Patnaik (and his cohort Justice Roma Pal) who ordered Punjab state to complete the disputed SYL (Sutlej-Yumna Link) canal within a year.The Punjab government suit seeks, 'Justice on river waters distribution' and also requests the court to discharge, "Punjab state from the obligation to construct the Sutlej-Yumna Link (SYL) canal" which will divert Ravi/Beas river waters to the surplus Yumna river basin. The Punjab government suit, nor any media report, mentions the fact that the river waters is a provincial subject under the Indian Constitution and the Supreme Court, nor any of its judges, have any right whatsoever to obligate Punjab to commit suicide by rebuiding the SYL canal which will carry Sikh Punjab's life-giving river water to non-riparian Hindu-majority Haryana state free of charge.
The last minute Punjab government's move has come barely a day before the deadline (January 15, 2003) set by the two bigoted anti-Sikh Hindu judges (since retired) of the Indian Supreme court last year. The Punjab Government has filed the civil suit in the wake of the apex court’s order which had directed the state government on January 15 last year to initiate work for the SYL canal’s completion within a year. "If Punjab fails to do so, the Centre should get the work done with the help of its agencies," the crafty judge had directed. This is exactly what the Hindutva crowd is after as is evident from a Times of India report today which states and we quote verbatim,"Close on the heels of filing of a fresh petition in the Supreme Court by Punjab on the SYL issue, Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala, accompanied by MPs from the state and former chief minister Bansi Lal, met Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on Tuesday, urging him to get the canal completed through central agencies in accordance with the ruling of the apex court. For Times of India report please click at: timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?artid=34354086
More than the above, last year's Supreme court order was clearly a controvertial and illegal judgement, a judgement not binding on the state of Punjab as the court order was not even ordered by the Constitution Bench of, at least, five judges as mandated by Article 145 of the Constitution. More than that, river waters is a provincial subject under the Indian Constitution and even the 'musical chairs' Indian Supreme Court ( 24 Chief Justices in 55 years as compared to twelve Chief Justices in the US in over 200 years) is overstepping constitutional bounds by interfering in the SYL canal issue. The two greedy Hindutva judges (having been bribed prior to retirement as is the practice in the corrupt Indian judiciary) illegally ordered completion of the Punjab section of the controversial SYL canal within a year, which construction has been at a standstill for nearly two decades ever since a few SYL canal Engineers died of bullet wounds in the 1980's fired from the guns of some Sikh Freedom fighters.
The Sutlej-Yumna Link canal - if and when it is completed - will syphon Sikh-majority Punjab's Ravi/Beas river water and carry it to the surplus Yumna river basin located in non-riparian Hindu-majority Haryana state. This transfer/theft of Ravi/Beas river waters is obviously a matter of life and death for the Sikhs specially for the farmers of water-short Southern Punjab districts of Ferozepore, Faridkot, Muktsar, Moga and parts of Sangrur, Mansa and Bathinda where nine hundred thousand acres of fertile farmlands will become a desert. In the past twelve months we have dedicated this column to this SYL issue eleven times (Jan. 23, 2002, Feb. 06; March 27; July 24; July 31; August 07; Sept. 04; Sept. 11; Oct. 23; and December 04, 2002 issues) which can be read by clicking on the 'Sikh Corner' on the front page of the very popular South Asia Tribune website (at: www.satribune.com/index.htm) and then scrolling down to the archives if you want study this issue in detail. OR, you could click on the following links to the eleven Khalistan Calling's we have dedicated to the SYL canal dispute during the past twelve months as a backgrounder:-
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2002/january23.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2002/december04.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2002/october23.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2002/september11.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2002/september04.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2002/august07.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2002/july31.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2002/july24.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2002/march27.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2002/february06.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2002/january23.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2001/september05.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2001/august21.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/2001/june20.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/1999/april14.aspx
www.khalistan-affairs.org/khalistancalling/1999/march17.aspx
According to media reports the state of Punjab is being guided by a socalled strong legal team led by Punjab Advocate-General and includes eminent jurist and legal luminaries like Mr Fali S. Nariman, Senior Advocate and Mr Anil B. Divan, Senior Advocate. Some eminent jurists if they have not mentioned in their suit that the Lok Sabha and not the Supreme Court is the final authority on a subject like river waters! We hope and pray that this whole SYL drama is not a repeat of the 'Nura Kushti' engaged in by all parties concerned - including the then Punjab Chief minister Parkash Singh Bsadal - on the Shaheed Undham Singh Nagar issue which Sikh-developed plains district was separated from U.P. and attached to the new hilly Uttar Anchel state!
The details of the Punjab government suit as reported in the Punjab media, are as follows:
1. Decree of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India on January 15, 2002, has decreed the suit being O.S. No.6 of 1996 filed by the state of Haryana and directed the state of Punjab by a mandatory injunction to dig the SYL canal in its territory so as to enable Haryana to carry a part of its share of water of 3.5 MAF in the Ravi-Beas system. The review petition filed by the Government of Punjab challenging the decree was dismissed on March 5, 2002.
2. The interest of the state of Punjab and its farmers, particularly those of the farmers living in the districts of Ferozepore, Faridkot, Muktsar, Moga and parts of Sangrur, Mansa and Bathinda, has persuaded the Government of Punjab to take the following steps:
a) Complaint for re-allocation
The state of Punjab has filed a complaint dated January 11, 2003 on January 13, 2003 under Section 3 of the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 seeking
(I) Adjudication on the question whether state of Haryana is the riparian state to the Ravi-Beas system and
(II) Re-allocation (if Haryana is riparian) of the waters of Ravi and Beas amongst the basin states under the changed circumstances namely:
i) Reduction in the water from 17.17 MAF to 14.34 MAF, i.e. about 16 per cent on Yamuna Agreement dated May 12, 1994;
iii) Further availability of another 1.62 MAF to Haryana under the Sharda Yamuna Link proposed by the Government of India in its resolution dated December 13, 2002 pursuant to the judgement dated October 31, 2002 of the Supreme Court in the case of "Networking of Rivers";
iv) The present uses of Punjab, particularly in the districts of Ferozepore, Faridkot, Muktsar, Moga and parts of Sangrur, Mansa and Bathinda.
These areas were allocated water legally before the reorganisation of the states i.e. November 1, 1966 and the people have continued to use water, leading to the development of legitimate expectations over the last five decades;
v) In re-allocation, the basin areas shall have first charge over the waters of Ravi-Beas. The trans-basin diversions to the Yamuna basin, which is a surplus basin is not permissible under the rules of equitable apportionment governing inter-state or international drainage basins;
b) Suit before Supreme Court
The state of Punjab has filed a suit on January 13, 2003 under Article 131 of the Constitution, inter-alia, seeking:
(I) Discharge from the obligation to construct the SYL canal under the changed circumstances mentioned in the complaint filed by the state of Punjab on January 13, 2002, where adjudication on the question whether Haryana is a riparian state or not and re-allocation of the waters of Ravi-Beas is sought.
(i) The vires of Section 78(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 which empowers the Government of India to distribute the waters of Ravi-Beas, has been challenged as ultra vires of the Constitution.
(ii) The vires of Section 14 of the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 has also been challenged.
(iii) The Punjab Settlement (popularly called the Rajiv-Longowal pact) Accord does not constitute a binding contract for want of compliance with the Constitutional requirement under Article 299 and for the reason that for last more than 17 years no steps have been taken with regard to other issues which were part of settlement. The communication of Haryana Chief Minister dated January 6, 2003 also shows that Haryana has resiled from the said understanding.
(iv) Alternatively, Punjab has asked that in case the said accord is held to be valid, then the SYL canal construction must be linked with the performance of other obligations on the part of the state of Haryana and Union of India, including transfer of Chandigarh and recruitment in the Army on merit.
(II) A declaration that the judgement dated January 15, 2002 in O.S. 6 of 1996 is not binding on the state of Punjab as it was not decided by the Constitution Bench of, at least, five judges as mandated by Article 145(3) of the Constitution and
3. Practice of periodic review
The water allocations, whether effected by agreement, legislation or adjudication are always subject to periodic review. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, 1973 and 1976 has prescribed review of its decision after the lapse of 25 years i.e. from May 31, 2000. Similarly, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal, 1979 has prescribed review of its decision after a period of 30 years. The US Supreme Court, which was apportioned inter-state river waters in many cases, has always retained jurisdiction at the foot of the decree to review and modify the allocations. The practice with regard to the agreements is also same. For instance, the Yamuna Basin Agreement dated May 12, 1994 where Haryana is a party, contemplates revision after 2025. Hence, it is submitted that the allocation of water in Ravi-Beas which was originally made on January 29, 1955 and subsequently reaffirmed after the Punjab’s reorganisation is liable for review on the grounds of fundamental change of circumstances.
4. Principles of re-allocation
In the reallocation of water, Punjab has pleaded for strict observation to the rules of equitable apportionment governing the Inter-state or International Drainage Basins. Punjab, accordingly, has pleaded that the basin areas should have first charge over the waters. In this regard, Punjab has pointed out that the basin areas in Haryana (assuming it falls in the Indus Basin) is only 1/5th of the basin area in Punjab. Further, trans-basin diversions to Yamuna Basin in Haryana is not permissible as Yamuna Basin is a surplus basin. The Sharda-Yamuna Link proposed by the Government of India pursuant to the judgement dated October 31, 2002 in the "Networking of the Rivers" case has also been highlighted. This link gives Haryana an additional water of 1.62 MAF. Under the changed circumstances, SYL diversion is neither advisable nor justifiable according to Punjab.
5. Constitutional remedies
The peace achieved by great sacrifice of people of Punjab in the 1980s and early 1990s should not be allowed to dissipate. The Government of Punjab, therefore, is fully committed to protect the interest of its farmers by pursuing all constitutional remedies available to it.