Haryana CM Nayab Singh Saini says SYL talks a ‘positive step forward'
Bhagwant Singh Mann
, mediated by Union Jal Shakti minister C R Paatil, over the decades-old Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal dispute.
Speaking after the meeting in New Delhi, Saini said: "Today's meeting has taken a step forward.
The previous meeting on July 9 also occurred in a positive atmosphere."
He added that the states would now proceed "in a positive environment" during the Supreme Court hearing scheduled for Aug 13. The Haryana CM declined to divulge specific details of the discussion but clarified that the talks remained focused on the SYL canal — a critical infrastructure project aimed at water-sharing — and not on any alternative 'Yamuna-Satluj' canal.
Saini was joined by chief principal secretary Rajesh Khullar and senior officials from the irrigation and related departments. His counterpart, Bhagwant Mann, attended alongside Punjab officials. Tuesday's session marked the fifth high-level meeting between the neighbouring states since the Supreme Court directed the Centre to mediate the long-standing water dispute, which dates back to the 1980s. Even though the court has already ruled in favour of Haryana, implementation has stalled due to political and ground-level resistance from Punjab.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
No annual fees for life
UnionBank Credit Card
Apply Now
Undo
Two recent rounds of mediation — on July 9 and Aug 5 — come after meetings held between previous state leaders, including Manohar Lal Khattar and Capt Amarinder Singh in 2020, followed by meetings in 2022 and 2024. Both state govts, along with the Centre, are expected to submit a joint status report to the SC during the upcoming hearing, a step that could prove decisive in unlocking the next phase of implementation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Can Abu Salem walk free soon? Here's what the Maharashtra government and the courts have said
Gangster Abu Salem, who was extradited to India from Portugal in 2005, has been trying to make the case for premature release from prison. But the state government told the Bombay High Court this week that he has to serve out a term of 25 years as per the conditions of his extradition from Portugal – which means that he cannot be released before 2030. India had assured Portugal that Salem would not be given the death penalty or jail term exceeding 25 years if he was found guilty in cases that were pending against him. In 2015 and 2017, Salem was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of builder Pradeep Jain and the 1993 Bombay blasts, respectively. On what basis is Salem seeking release? Abu Salem, or Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari, was named as an absconding accused in the first chargesheet filed by Mumbai Police in the Bombay blasts case on November 4, 1993. The police claimed that Salem had been given the task of transporting and concealing weapons, and was linked to the conspiracy to execute the blasts. On March 12 that year, a dozen bombs went off across Mumbai in a terrorist attack coordinated by Dawood Ibrahim and his gang, killing 257 people. Salem remained a wanted accused in the blasts case as well as the 1995 murder of Jain, a Mumbai-based builder. He was said to have fled the country, and remained absconding as the trial against the other accused began and ended. It was only in 2002 that investigators had a breakthrough, and Salem was detained in Lisbon, the capital of Portugal. He was said to have undergone plastic surgery to change his appearance, but his identity was established on the basis of his fingerprints that were available in police records. A year later, the Portuguese government consented to India's request for Salem's extradition on the basis of documents and evidence that were made available on his alleged role in crimes in India, including the 1993 terrorist attack. Salem appealed against the government's order in courts in Portugal, and L K Advani, then deputy Prime Minister, gave an assurance that he would not be given the death penalty or a prison term of more than 25 years. On November 11, 2005, Salem was extradited to India. He was put on trial for the murder of the builder, and the 1993 blasts case. He was found guilty of murder and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), and was sentenced to life imprisonment. For the past few years, Salem, who is lodged in a jail in Maharashtra, has been knocking on the doors of various authorities, including the trial court, Bombay High Court, and the Supreme Court, asking for the date on which he would be released. He has been claiming that he is entitled to benefits that a prisoner gets, including remission. Remission is a reduction in the jail term based on grounds including the nature of the offence and good conduct, and as part of special schemes, etc. Salem has claimed that based on the time he has spent in jail, he is entitled to 3 years and 16 days of remission. Also, given that he had been detained in Portugal from September 2002 onward, he has spent more than 25 years in jail, and should have been released on March 31, 2025. Based on these calculations, Salem has written to Portuguese authorities on various occasions, claiming that the conditions of his extradition have been violated. He has also written to the Maharashtra Prison Department, the state government, and the courts. Back in 2017, Salem had sought remission under a special scheme introduced by the state to mark the 125th birth anniversary of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. He had said that his case was 'entirely different' from that of other convicts, as the agreement between Portugal and India guaranteed 'pardon, reprieve, respite or remission'. And what have the courts ruled in this matter? * Salem had approached the Supreme Court in 2018 with his plea on early release. In 2022, the court said that considering the gravity of his offences, no special privileges could be extended to him. The court also said that his contention that the period of his detention should be considered to have started in 2002 when he was first detained could not be accepted, as he was convicted of entering Portugal on a fake passport and had been punished in that country. The court said that in keeping with the assurance given to Portugal, once Salem completed 25 years in jail, which would be in 2030, the Union of India would consider the matter. * Last year, Salem approached the trial court in Mumbai, asking for the tentative date of his release, and a calculation of his remission as per prison rules. The court rejected his plea in December 2024 after the CBI submitted that as per the order of the Supreme Court, he could be released only in 2030. * Salem then approached the Bombay High Court, where the Prison Department and Home Department of the state submitted in May that he had actually been in prison for 19 years. The Home Department also submitted that since Salem is a convict in two cases, under the anti-terror law, TADA, his life imprisonment would not be calculated as a 14-year prison term. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs too filed an affidavit in May, saying that as a TADA convict, Salem's life imprisonment was for 60 years – however, to honour the assurance given to Portugal, the question of his release would arise on November 10, 2030, after he had served 25 years. The Union of India would abide by the assurance at the appropriate time, subject to remedies which may be available, the affidavit said. In July, the High Court admitted Salem's plea seeking remission and early release, but said that he was yet to complete the 25-year term, and that his plea would be heard in due course. This week, the state informed the court in an affidavit that Salem does not have a 'palatable history', citing the criminal offences he had been convicted of. It said that given his criminal record, Salem was a 'Category 8' prisoner who would have to spend 60 years in jail before being considered for release. However, as per the agreement with the Portuguese, Salem would not be put in jail for more than 25 years, the state said. But these 25 years would be 'actual imprisonment', and would not include remission. Therefore, he cannot be released before 2030.
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump admin backs off immediate ban, but pressures Harvard over visas and funding
What began as a policy memo has now metastasized into one of the most consequential legal face-offs in American higher education. At the center of the storm is Harvard University, an academic titan that now finds itself locked in a protracted battle with the Trump administration, not just over billions in frozen federal research funds, but over the very future of its international student body. The dispute goes far beyond campus boundaries. It is testing the limits of executive power over academic freedom, weaponizing immigration infrastructure to target perceived ideological dissent, and redrawing the contours of America's engagement with global talent. For Harvard, the stakes are existential. For the United States, the implications are international. The trigger: SEVP certification as a political weapon In May, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempted a dramatic revocation of Harvard's certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a federal designation required for enrolling international students. The justification? A tenuous blend of accusations: Unchecked campus antisemitism, concerns over influence from the Chinese Communist Party, and noncompliance with reporting requirements. A federal judge swiftly blocked the ban, calling into question both its timing and legal foundation. But the damage was already done. More than 7,000 international students at Harvard faced an abrupt threat to their immigration status, and institutions across the country watched as the government targeted one of their own in a stunning show of power, as reported by US media sources. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Mr. Bala's Powerful Intraday Strategy Revealed – No More Guesswork TradeWise Learn More Undo The latest maneuver: Tactical retreat or strategic reframe? This week, the Justice Department filed a new motion offering to 'simplify' the case. It distanced itself from the now-infamous May 22 letter by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, which had previously served as the basis for the attempted ban. The administration now seeks to proceed through formal administrative channels, an apparent shift in tone, but not in intent. Officials say the move is designed to 'narrow the issues.' Critics say it's a strategic recalibration aimed at insulating the administration from further legal embarrassment while continuing to squeeze Harvard through bureaucratic pressure points. Despite offering to negotiate, the government claims Harvard declined a proposed meeting. Meanwhile, the broader legal war continues, with Harvard filing a separate lawsuit over the withholding of $2 billion in federal research grants, a fiscal stranglehold designed to compel compliance. The settlement trap: Monitors, money, and mandates Behind closed doors, however, another game is playing out. According to sources familiar with the negotiations, the White House is seeking a $500 million payment from Harvard as a settlement floor, an extraordinary sum that signals how high the stakes have climbed. And this isn't just about money. The administration is reportedly insisting on a deal modeled after the one recently imposed on Columbia University: a $221 million settlement that included strict limits on international student enrollment, mandatory reporting of visa infractions, and the appointment of a federal monitor embedded within the institution. For Harvard, agreeing to such terms would amount to relinquishing a core tenet of academic autonomy. For Washington, it's a litmus test of loyalty and submission. The Trump administration is positioning oversight not just as compliance, but as capitulation. Academic freedom under siege The chilling effect of this standoff is already evident. Other elite institutions, many of which rely on international students for tuition revenue and intellectual capital, are recalibrating their risk calculus. If Harvard can be stripped of access and funding under the guise of national security, no institution is immune. The targeting of international students also aligns with broader policy trends. Visa appointments are stalling. Work permit pathways are tightening. Campus-based speech is being reframed as a national threat. In this environment, academic institutions are no longer neutral grounds, they are surveillance zones and ideological battlegrounds. The bigger picture: Exporting fear, importing control What the administration is executing is not just a legal battle, but a systemic realignment. By linking federal research dollars with immigration enforcement and ideological policing, the White House is effectively recoding the governance of higher education. It's a message to all universities: Comply with our worldview, or pay a price. The SEVP certification, once a benign bureaucratic requirement, is now a tactical lever. It turns student mobility into an instrument of statecraft, one that can be granted or revoked based on political favor. This sets a dangerous precedent, not just for Harvard, but for global academic cooperation. An inflection point for American academia As the court date looms and negotiations remain fraught, Harvard stands at a critical crossroads. Caving to federal pressure may protect access to funding and visa programs, but at the cost of institutional sovereignty. Defiance, on the other hand, risks isolation and prolonged legal warfare. This isn't merely a case of one university versus one administration. It's a referendum on the soul of American higher education, on whether it remains a sanctuary for global learning, or becomes an extension of political machinery. Either way, the outcome will resonate far beyond Cambridge. Because what's unfolding is not just a lawsuit. It's a test of whether academic independence can survive in a climate where internationalism is no longer an asset, but a liability. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Israel envoy, Hry CM discuss mutual cooperation on agri and AI
Chandigarh: Israeli ambassador to India, Reuven Azar, paid a courtesy visit to Nayab Singh Saini at his official residence in Chandigarh on Thursday. During the meeting, they discussed mutual cooperation and several other important subjects. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "Haryana and Israel will work together in various sectors such as research, healthcare, agricultural technology, advanced irrigation systems and artificial intelligence," the CM said. The chief minister stated that there was a focus on establishing a Centre of Excellence in Haryana. "Discussions were also held on the further development of the Integrated Aviation Hub in Hisar, and enhancing overseas placement opportunities. Under the Department of Foreign Cooperation of the Haryana govt, more than 180 youth from the state are currently employed in Israel through overseas placement initiatives. Additionally, there was a demand from across the country to recruit 5,000 nurses in Israel's healthcare sector, and Haryana is keen to increase its participation in this initiative. There was also a detailed discussion on setting up a Global Artificial Intelligence (AI) Centre in the state to train youth in modern AI skills and promote technological innovation," said a statement released by the state govt. The chief minister added that Haryana is looking to increase collaboration with Israel in various fields. "We plan to work with Israel on new technologies to reuse wastewater for irrigation, and to make water suitable for agriculture and drinking purposes," said a source. MSID: 123166914 413 |
