‘Completion of SYL Canal essential to resolve water dispute between Punjab and Haryana'
What is the current water dispute between Punjab and Haryana?
In April 2025, Haryana reported a sharp decline in its water supply from the Bhakra dam and approached the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) to raise its allocation from 4,000 cusecs to 8,500 cusecs. The BBMB's technical committee partially met the demand by approving an additional 4,500 cusecs for eight days. Punjab opposed the decision, claiming Haryana had already used 3.110 million acre-feet (MAF) — 104% of its sanctioned share for the depletion period (September 21, 2024-May 20, 2025). It argued that Bhakra and Pong dam levels were critically low and insisted on capping Haryana's supply at 4,000 cusecs to protect its own agricultural needs.
Haryana countered that water reserves were sufficient and accused Punjab of making false claims. It also pointed out that Punjab had received 22% excess water over the past two decades. As tensions escalated, the BBMB sought intervention from the Central government. The Centre advised Punjab to follow the BBMB recommendation. But the deadlock continues.
What is the significance of the Ravi-Beas water dispute?
This is a long-standing inter-State conflict over the equitable sharing of surplus waters from the rivers. The dispute affects agriculture, drinking water, regional development, and political relations in northern India.
While Haryana cites historical agreements, tribunal rulings, and Supreme Court verdicts to demand its share, Punjab argues it lacks sufficient water due to rising demand and ecological degradation.
What is the legal and historical background?
The roots of the dispute trace back to the post-Independence period. Under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, India retained control over the eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej — while Pakistan received the western rivers. In 1955, 15.85 MAF of Ravi-Beas water was allocated among Punjab (7.2 MAF), Rajasthan (8 MAF), and Jammu & Kashmir (0.65 MAF). After Haryana's creation in 1966, it was granted 3.5 MAF. In 1976, a government order split 7.2 MAF equally between Punjab and Haryana. The 1981 agreement adjusted this, reducing Haryana's share to 45.33% and increasing Punjab's.
To facilitate this allocation, the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal was proposed. The 1985 Punjab Accord reaffirmed both water-sharing and the SYL Canal. The Eradi Tribunal later fixed Haryana's share at 3.83 MAF and Punjab's at 5 MAF, stressing that the SYL Canal was essential for Haryana.
However, Punjab halted canal construction in 1982 under political pressure, and in 2004, it passed legislation terminating all earlier water agreements. The Supreme Court declared this termination unconstitutional, but implementation remains stalled.
What operational challenges does Haryana face in accessing the Ravi-Beas water?
Haryana's key challenge is the non-completion of the SYL Canal. The State relies on the Bhakra Main Line and Narwana Canal — both outdated and suffering from siltation and wear and tear. The Supreme Court directives and tribunal rulings have not been enforced.
As a result, Haryana receives only 1.62 MAF of its 3.5 MAF entitlement, losing 1.88 MAF annually. This water shortfall hits the State's southern districts hard, leaving over 3 lakh hectares of farmland uncultivated and impacting agricultural output .
What is the role of the Bhakra Beas Management Board?
Formed under the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966, the BBMB operates under the Ministry of Power. It manages the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas projects — reservoirs, canals, and power stations — and regulates water release based on storage, snowmelt forecasts, and inflow data. The BBMB follows a two-season cycle: depletion period (September 21-May 20) and filling period (May 21-September 20). Monthly technical committee meetings, chaired by the BBMB chairman and attended by State officials, decide allocations based on levels like Bhakra dam's critical 1,506 feet level. Following the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, the BBMB also plays a strategic role in ensuring surplus water does not flow into Pakistan.
How do you view BBMB's role in the April–May 2025 dispute?
The BBMB's actions were critical but controversial. It cut Haryana's allocation from 8,500 to 4,000 cusecs, citing low reservoir levels, which sparked strong protests from Haryana. The State also highlighted that its representative — Member (Irrigation), Haryana — has not been appointed, weakening its say in the BBMB decisions.
Accusations of bias towards Punjab surfaced, although the BBMB defended its actions as technically sound.
What are the broader implications of the dispute?
The unresolved dispute has significant socio-economic and environmental costs. Farmers in Haryana's Kaithal, Jind, Hisar, Fatehabad, and Sirsa districts face severe irrigation shortages. Punjab fears further losses may worsen its groundwater crisis.
Politically, the issue has polarised both States and escalated public tensions. Environmentally, poor coordination leads to unutilised monsoon water flowing into Pakistan and excessive groundwater extraction on both sides. Governance suffers from institutional gaps, including the BBMB vacancies and outdated tribunal assessments.
What solutions do you propose?
Completion of the SYL Canal is essential. Additionally, alternative water transport systems, irrigation efficiency upgrades, crop diversification, water conservation, and groundwater monitoring must be prioritised. The Centre must facilitate sustained inter-State dialogue and promote confidence-building measures. A long-term political consensus should replace short-term electoral interests.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Age of consent must stay 18: Centre to Supreme Court
The Union government on Wednesday opposed any move to lower the age of consent under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act or introduce exceptions for adolescent relationships, telling the Supreme Court that such dilution, 'even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy,' would dismantle the statutory shield meant to safeguard minors and risk opening the door to child abuse. The Centre firmly urged the top court to reject any proposition to amend or dilute the age of consent, stating that such a move would embolden exploitative conduct and harm the very children the law seeks to protect. (HT Photo) In its written submissions filed before a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the government underscored that the current threshold of 18 must remain 'strictly and uniformly enforced' to maintain the integrity of child protection laws and uphold the best interests of minors. 'The statutory age of consent fixed at eighteen years must therefore be strictly and uniformly enforced. Any departure from this standard, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would amount to rolling back decades of progress in child protection law,' the Centre said, adding that 'introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law.' The Centre's categorical stand assumes significance amid a deluge of cases where courts are increasingly confronted with situations involving consensual relationships between adolescents, often leading to the prosecution of young boys under POCSO, even when the alleged victim does not complain of coercion or exploitation. The Centre's response comes in the wake of concerns raised by senior advocate Indira Jaising, who, in her capacity as amicus curiae, had submitted earlier this year that mandatory reporting of all sexual activity involving minors, even consensual encounters between adolescents, was leading to the criminalisation of young people and severely compromising the health rights, privacy, and autonomy of adolescent girls. Jaising and senior advocate Sidharth Luthra are assisting the top court in a 2012 public interest litigation filed by advocate Nipun Saxena. The matter is expected to be taken up again on Thursday. Emphasising the deliberate and coherent statutory policy behind setting 18 as the age of consent, the Centre, however, stated: 'The legislative determination to fix the age of consent at eighteen years, and to treat all sexual activities with a person below that age as an offence irrespective of purported consent, is a product of a deliberate, well-considered and coherent statutory policy.' This policy, the submissions said, is reflected not just in the POCSO Act but also across several legal instruments, including the Indian Penal Code, its successor the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Indian Majority Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act -- all of which view individuals under 18 as legally incapable of full agency in decisions with lasting consequences. 'It is submitted that this policy decision is an outcome of careful and ongoing legislative discussions, considering India's cultural diversity, socio-economic conditions, and the practical challenges faced across the country,' the government said. 'It reflects a clear understanding of the vulnerability of minors, the common occurrence of coercion and manipulation in such situations, and the challenges in proving the absence of consent when minors are involved,' added the submissions, settled by additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati. The government also warned that lowering the age of consent would shift focus from the conduct of the accused to the perceived willingness of the child, undermining the spirit of child-centric justice and increasing the risk of victim-blaming. 'A diluted law risks opening the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of consent…such a shift would inevitably lead to the re-victimisation of the child by shifting the focus from the unlawful conduct of the accused to the credibility of the child's version,' it further noted. While acknowledging that some adolescent relationships may be consensual and born out of 'emotional curiosity or mutual attraction,' the Centre maintained that these instances must be left to the courts to evaluate individually, and should not become the basis for legislative change. 'Such instances must be carefully scrutinised by courts on a case-by-case basis, using discretion and sensitivity to the facts. This judicial discretion, however, is distinct from legislative dilution. The moment the statute begins to generalise such exceptions, it weakens the bright-line protective standard that currently acts as a deterrent and shield for all children,' the submissions stated. Referring to data cited by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development in its 240th Report, the government highlighted that more than 50% of sexual offences against children are perpetrated by persons known to the victim, including family members, caregivers, and teachers, which, it said, are relationships often marked by a power imbalance that prevents children from resisting or reporting abuse. 'In such cases, presenting 'consent' as a defence only victimises the child, shifts the blame onto them, and undermines the very object of POCSO to protect children from exploitation regardless of whether they were 'willing',' the Centre said. It further asserted that strict liability under POCSO is not punitive but protective, recognising that minors, regardless of physical maturity, are often incapable of giving informed consent, especially under social, familial, or economic pressure. 'This principle is not confined to a single enactment but is consistently reflected across multiple enactments…This formulation is a deliberate choice, grounded in the recognition that minors lack the legal and developmental capacity to give meaningful and informed consent in matters involving sexual activity,' the government submitted. Invoking international commitments, the Centre also pointed to India's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which defines a child as anyone under 18 and mandates States to protect them from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse. The POCSO Act, it added, was 'enacted in direct response to this obligation, codifying a strict liability regime wherein all sexual acts with children under 18 are criminalised, irrespective of perceived consent.' The Centre firmly urged the top court to reject any proposition to amend or dilute the age of consent, stating that such a move would embolden exploitative conduct and harm the very children the law seeks to protect.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC asks Karnataka, Centre to act on 5 tigers' death
Representational Image NEW DELHI: Expressing concern over death of five tigers in MM Hills sanctuary last month, Supreme Court on Wednesday sought Karnataka govt's response and asked the Union ministry of environment and forests to frame policy in consultation with states to end human-animal conflict, resulting in such avoidable tragic incidents. Amicus curiae and senior advocate P Parameshwaran placed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) report before a three-judge bench led by CJI B R Gavai and said it was a clear case of human-animal conflict as villagers poisoned a cattle carcass which was consumed by a tigress and her four cubs, resulting in their death. He said many cattle of surrounding villages strayed into the sanctuary and were attacked by wild animals, including tigers. It required robust patrolling by forest staff, but it was not being done as the majority of forest staff were hired by contractors. The contractors did not provide these outsourced forest guards, employed in most tiger reserves and sanctuaries, any weapon or scientific equipment to effectively patrol the sanctuary and protect it from stray cattle and poachers, resulting in such unfortunate incidents, Parameshwaran said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The bench asked additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati to ask the MoEF take the initiative by consulting all states and stakeholders to solve this staff issue. Bhati assured the court that it would be done. "This tragic incident underscores the urgent need for stronger preventive measures, including intensified patrolling, robust surveillance mechanisms like camera traps, community engagement to address human-wildlife conflict, rapid response protocols for carcass monitoring, and stricter enforcement of laws against wildlife poisoning to prevent recurrence of such deliberate killings," the CEC said in its report. "Among the tiger landscapes in India, the Western Ghats is an important landscape complex from habitat, population and management points of view," it said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC turns down plea to stay NEET counselling
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down plea of two students to stay counselling for undergraduate medical admission on the basis of NEET-UG 2025 but agreed to hear their grievances. The petitioners approached the court after allegedly suffering a power outage during the exam at a test centre in Madhya Pradesh. Agreeing to hear their plea, the Supreme Court bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, made it clear that there would be no stay on the counselling and listed the petition for Friday. The candidates approached the Supreme Court against the July 14 order of the Madhya Pradesh high court refusing to order a re-test for them. TNN
