On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to admit the Punjab government’s plea challenging a directive from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had instructed Punjab to adhere to a May 2 resolution recommending the release of an additional 4,500 cusecs of water to Haryana.
Representing the Punjab government, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued before Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that Haryana had already consumed more than its designated share of water, and that Punjab had voluntarily supplied an extra 4,000 cusecs on humanitarian grounds. Singhvi emphasized the emotional and political sensitivity of the issue for both states.
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), countered by stating that after consultations with all parties, the board had arrived at a collective decision. Despite this, Punjab authorities allegedly deployed police at the Bhakra Nangal dam to prevent the diversion of water — an action Mehta criticized as inappropriate, highlighting the shared national interest of both states.
Citing the High Court’s ruling, Mehta noted that Punjab and its officials had been barred from obstructing the normal operations of the BBMB-managed Bhakra Nangal dam and associated control rooms, emphasizing that administrative control must remain unhindered.
The apex court observed that the High Court’s remarks should not influence any decisions that may be taken in subsequent official proceedings. The May 2 meeting, chaired by the Union Home Secretary, had endorsed the BBMB’s recommendation to release the additional water for a limited eight-day period in order to help Haryana manage a critical water shortage.
Earlier, on April 23, the BBMB’s technical panel had proposed that Haryana receive a total of 8,500 cusecs of water. The High Court had further clarified that Punjab remained free to provide lawful security support at the dam site and BBMB facilities if required.
It was also noted that if Punjab disagreed with any BBMB decision, it could pursue remedy through Explanation II to Rule 7 of the 1974 Rules — by submitting a formal representation to the Central Government via the BBMB chairperson, with the assurance that such a request would be considered promptly.
Punjab, however, maintained that it had already exceeded its responsibilities by supplying 4,000 cusecs of water to Haryana, and resisted providing the additional 4,500 cusecs, citing that Haryana had already exhausted its quota by March.
