We’re neutral on SYL dispute, Centre tells SC

New Delhi, The Centre today refused to take a stand in the Supreme Court on the validity of the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act 2004, even as Punjab insisted that this was must for resolving its river water dispute with Haryana.
“We are neutral. We can’t take a stand,” Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar told a five-member Constitution Bench headed by Justice Anil R Dave during the hearing on the Presidential Reference on the validity of the Act.
Under the 2004 law, Punjab annulled its pacts signed with the neighbouring states for sharing water.
At this, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said Punjab could finalise its line of arguments only if the Centre clarified its stance on the reference. Kumar concluded his arguments after explaining the legal intricacies involved in the case, upon which the Bench asked Dhavan to make his contentions.
As Dhavan expressed his inability to do so in the light of Centre’s refusal, the Bench remarked, “If they knew the answers to the questions raised in the Presidential Reference, they would not have approached the Supreme Court.” The other members of the Bench are Justices PC Ghose, SK Singh, AK Goel and Amitava Roy.
Only a month ago (on February 29), Kumar had told the Bench that the 2004 Act was against the SC orderson the completion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal. “We stand by the two judgments” of the SC for construction of the SYL canal which was opposed by Punjab, he said.
Punjab’s another senior counsel Ram Jethmalani today too pleaded with the Bench.
As Punjab was reluctant to argue, the Bench asked Haryana’s senior counsel Shyam Divan to make his submissions. Divan sought to fault the 2004 Act by citing the SC rulings in the Cauvery water dispute.
No argument on land
The Bench asked the litigants if everything was okay after its March 17 order to the Centre and Punjab to maintain status quo over SYL canal land
The order came at the instance of Haryana, which questioned the validity of a law passed by Punjab three days earlier for returning canal land to farmers
“Things are fine, status quo is being maintained,” the Centre’s counsel informed the Bench; Haryana too did not complain
Hence, there was no argument on the SYL land and the pleadings were restricted to Punjab’s 2004 Act