The Delhi Jal Board on Friday sided with Haryana in the Supreme Court to challenge the validity of a 2004 law enacted by Punjab ending its commitment to construct the Satluj-Yamuna link (SYl) Canal, little realising that by doing so it went against its own Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal who last month supported the 2004 law at a pre-election rally in Kapurthala.
The Delhi Government sacked the Jal Board counsel Suresh Tripathy soon after his plea in favour of Haryana, sending signals to the election-bound Punjab that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was in no mood to annoy the farmers and landowners in Punjab, who will greatly benefit by receiving back the lands taken from them to construct SYl canal.
With a five-judge bench of the apex court hearing a Presidential Reference on the validity of the 2004 Punjab law titled Termination of Agreements Act, the Court had sought response from the States of Delhi and Rajasthan which too were to benefit from the Ravi-Beas waters, besides Haryana. Recently, Punjab Assembly passed yet another law by which proprietary rights of the land acquired for SYl Canal stood transferred to the original landowners. However, the actual takeover by landowners was prevented by Supreme Court which ordered status quo on the lands in question.
Appearing for the DJB, counsel Suresh Tripathy told the bench comprising Justices AR Dave, PC Ghose, SK Singh, Adarsh Goel and Amitava Roy that as far as Delhi was concerned, it was entitled to its share from SYl Canal and would support Haryana’s plea in opposing the 2004 law and the present law that is yet to come into operation.
little did the counsel realise about the huge embarrassment he caused to the AAP Government, which was seen as going back on its recent announcement on SYl. On March 15, Kejriwal had addressed a gathering of farmers in Seechewal, Kapurthala where he said that Punjab cannot spare any water from its rivers as the water available for the State and its people was very less. He even spoke in support of the recent law promising return of land acquired for construction of SYl canal to the original landowners.
Punjab Government had throughout argued that the December 31, 1981 settlement between Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi had to be revisited as over the years the flow in the river had decreased. Besides, over the years, Haryana received more water from Yamuna river, thus meeting the water needs of the State.
Though Punjab had requested the Centre to constitute a fresh Water Tribunal to revise the Agreement, the Centre refused to take any action till date. So far as Rajasthan was concerned, the state backed Haryana suggesting that no State can be allowed to unilaterally back out from its commitment to share water, which would violate the Constitutional principle of federalism to be maintained between States.