Punjab defends termination of water pacts

The Punjab government informed the Supreme Court that no illegality was committed by it in terminating water sharing agreements with neighbouring states and that it was under no obligation to build the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal despite the earlier court orders.

This was stated by the state in reply to a notice from the Supreme Court in the presidential reference by the Centre which had sought the apex court's opinion on the constitutional validity of the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004.

During the pendency of the reference, the Supreme Court had dismissed a petition filed by the Punjab government seeking review of a court order directing the Centre to implement the January 15, 2002 directive for completing the Punjab portion of the SYL canal.

The Amrinder Singh government said the state Assembly was forced to enact the law as since the creation of Punjab it had been discriminated as far as its need for water was concerned and alleged that its neighbour Haryana had been favoured.

"The Act of 2004, which terminates agreements on the ground of changed circumstances, is consistent with the legal position on the water allocation and is consistent with the provisions of the Constitution," the state affidavit, filed through advocate Rupinder Suri, said.

The Congress government said the termination of water agreements Act has removed the basis of the judgements of the Supreme Court directing construction of the SYL canal.

"The state of Punjab has validly discharged itself from the obligations arising from the agreements relating to the Ravi and Beas waters including digging of the SYL canal," it said.