Flow of Contention: Legal Battles and Political Stakes in the Punjab-Haryana Water Dispute
This article explores the latest developments, Historical and Legal Aspects of the conflict between Punjab and Haryana over the control and allocation of waters from the Sutlej and Beas rivers.
The equitable distribution of water resources among riparian states is a perennial challenge, often giving rise to complex legal and political disputes. The conflict between Punjab and Haryana over the control and allocation of waters from the Sutlej and Beas rivers, particularly those managed by the Bhakra-Nangal Dam, exemplifies this challenge. A recent intensification of this dispute has once again underscored the deep-seated issues and the intricate legal landscape governing this vital resource.
I. The Latest Chapter: A Decision Ignites Conflict
A significant escalation occurred on April 23, 2025, when the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) made a decision to release 8,500 cusecs of water to Haryana through the Bhakra Canal. This allocation included an additional 4,500 cusecs beyond the routine supply at that time. The BBMB's resolution also accounted for the water needs of other states dependent on this system, with 500 cusecs designated for Rajasthan and 496 cusecs for Delhi.
However, the implementation of this decision immediately met with opposition from Punjab. A critical delay in the water release ensued for eight days, from April 24, 2025, to May 1, 2025, attributed to Punjab's failure to submit the necessary indent. When the BBMB re-authorized the release on May 1, 2025, the Punjab Government responded by deploying police personnel at the dam site and its associated offices, effectively creating a physical blockade to prevent the flow of water to Haryana.
II. The Courts Intervene: Seeking Legal Redress
In the face of this direct obstruction, Haryana and several other affected parties sought legal intervention, filing multiple writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. These petitions aimed to secure crucial relief: the removal of the Punjab Police presence at the dam, the reinstatement of the BBMB's rightful control over dam operations, and the immediate release of water as per the BBMB's directive.
The matter was taken up by a Division Bench of the High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel. Their judgment, delivered on May 6, 2025, proved decisive. The court issued a clear directive for the restoration of the BBMB's exclusive control over the dam and ordered the withdrawal of the Punjab Police from the premises. Furthermore, the court mandated that the regulation of water supply must strictly comply with the decisions made by the BBMB, specifically referencing the outcome of the high-level meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary on May 2, 2025. This ruling reinforced the principle of the Central Government's authority, exercised through the BBMB, in matters of water allocation.
III. A Continued Test of Authority and the Rule of Law
Despite the High Court's unequivocal order, the tensions did not subside. The period following the court's directive saw continued friction. Notably, on May 8, 2025, an incident occurred at the Nangal dam where AAP workers, reportedly led by AAP Minister Harjot Bains, unlawfully confined the BBMB Chairman. This act was a clear defiance of the court's lawful directive and drew strong condemnation from the High Court itself on May 9, 2025, which termed it contempt of court. Such actions further exacerbated the already fraught relationship between the two states.
IV. Historical Roots and the Governing Legal Framework
The origins of the Punjab-Haryana water dispute are intrinsically linked to the reorganization of Punjab in 1966 and the subsequent creation of Haryana under the Punjab Reorganisation Act. This political restructuring necessitated a re-evaluation and reallocation of the waters from the Ravi and Beas rivers, which became a persistent source of disagreement.
While the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (ISRWDA) provides a general framework for resolving such conflicts through tribunals, the dispute concerning the Bhakra-Nangal Dam is specifically governed by the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (PRA). The legal principle of Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant, which posits that specific laws override general ones, applies here, as supported by various Supreme Court judgments.
The PRA established the rights of Haryana and other states dependent on the system, including Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, to access water from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects. Section 78 of the PRA, 1966, underpins these rights. The Act stipulated that the precise allocation proportions would be determined either through mutual agreement among the successor states, in consultation with the Central Government, or via an order issued by the Central Government.
The Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), constituted under Section 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, serves as the statutory body entrusted with the management of water distribution from the Bhakra-Nangal Dam among the beneficiary states: Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Delhi. The BBMB operates under the control and direction of the Central Government. The High Court's reliance on Explanation II to Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules, 1974, in its recent order, further solidified the legal basis of the BBMB's authority.
The High Court's ruling sharply criticized Punjab's actions, stating that using the police to obstruct water flow constituted a violation of the BBMB's authority under the PRA, 1966. The court outlined the proper legal course for Punjab to contest BBMB decisions: by making a representation to the Central Government through the BBMB Chairman. While acknowledging Punjab's right to ensure security, the court stressed that such measures must not impede the operational functioning of the dam.
V. The Unfinished Business: The Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal
A significant and unresolved dimension of the Punjab-Haryana water dispute is the fate of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal. This canal is designated to transport Haryana's share of river water. The project, conceived in 1982 as a 214-kilometer link, remains incomplete. Haryana completed its 92-kilometer portion, but Punjab halted construction on its 122-kilometer stretch in 1990, citing political reasons. The incomplete canal is a major impediment to Haryana receiving its full allocated share of 3.83 million acre-feet (MAF), as determined by the Eradi Tribunal.
The SYL canal issue has been a recurrent subject before the Supreme Court of India. In 2002, the Supreme Court directed Punjab to complete the canal, affirming Haryana's legal entitlements. More recently, on May 6, 2025, while addressing a 1996 suit filed by Haryana against Punjab (Original Suit No. 6 of 1996), a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih urged both states to collaboratively work with the Union Government to find an amicable resolution to the SYL dispute. A deadline of August 13, 2025, has been set for reaching a mutually acceptable solution, failing which the court will resume hearing the matter. A Supreme Court order in 2023 also mandated a land survey in Punjab related to the SYL, supporting Haryana's long-standing demand.
VI. Conclusion : Towards Resolution
The complexities of the Punjab-Haryana water dispute, particularly concerning the Bhakra-Nangal Dam and the unresolved Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal, are compounded by various political considerations. Even in the wake of judicial directives aimed at ensuring equitable water distribution, the Government of Punjab has shown reluctance to implement the stipulated water sharing arrangements with Haryana. This hesitation appears to be influenced by a combination of regional interests, historical concerns, and the inter-state political dynamics at play.
The politicization of essential shared resources poses challenges to cooperative federalism that is vital for the harmonious functioning of states within the Union. More importantly, protracted disputes over water access affect ordinary citizens' fundamental right to this basic necessity for life and livelihood. Resolving this enduring conflict demands a commitment to legal frameworks, constructive dialogue between stakeholders, and a prioritization of the populace's needs over regional political considerations, paving the way for a more just and sustainable management of shared water resources.