The SYL canal saga: Why Punjab won’t yield, and Haryana cannot let go (Northern Lights column)

Why in the News

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked, while hearing the three-decade-old Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal case, that “once the heart opens, the door also opens,” after Attorney General R. Venkataramani told the Bench that Punjab and Haryana now “speak in a joint voice.” The conciliatory language follows a 1996 suit by Haryana seeking completion of the SYL canal and comes months before Punjab’s Assembly elections, raising the question of whether it signals a genuine shift or another turn of phrase in a dispute where both states have historically hardened their positions, including a standoff last year when Punjab refused to loan Haryana water from the Bhakra dam for thirsty villages in Hisar and Fatehabad.

What is the SYL canal dispute?

1. A link canal ordered under a 1981 tripartite agreement: The SYL was designed as a 214-km canal, 122 km in Punjab and 92 km in Haryana, to carry surplus Ravi-Beas waters assessed at 17.17 million acre feet (MAF) under a 1981 agreement brokered by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi between Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan.
2. Haryana has completed its share, Punjab has not: Haryana finished its 92-km portion years ago, while construction on Punjab’s stretch has remained stalled since the 1980s.
3. Legal basis on both sides: Haryana rests its claim on its status as a successor state of undivided Punjab, the 1981 agreement and successive Supreme Court rulings directing Punjab to complete its share. Punjab invokes the riparian principle, under which states through which a river flows hold primary rights to its waters, to challenge the 1981 allocation.

Why has construction on the canal stalled for decades?

1. Militancy halted work at its peak: The Shiromani Akali Dal’s Nehar Roko Morcha against the canal evolved into the Dharam Yudh Morcha after the Akalis joined radical ideologue Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. In 1990, Babbar Khalsa International militants shot dead SYL chief engineer M.L. Sikri, superintending engineer Avtar Singh Aulakh, and 32 labourers at the site.
2. Punjab legislated itself out of the pact: In 2004, the Congress government headed by then Chief Minister Amarinder Singh passed the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, ending Punjab’s obligations under the 1981 pact; the Supreme Court struck the Act down in 2016.
3. Land returned to original owners: In 2016, the Akali government in Punjab returned the land acquired for canal construction to its original owners, a practical and political obstacle to reviving construction on the Punjab side.

Why does Punjab resist sharing the water?

1. Groundwater is already overexploited: Roughly 73 to 76 percent of Punjab’s blocks are overexploited, forcing farmers to dig progressively deeper wells, while border districts in southern Punjab at the tail end of the canal network struggle to irrigate.
2. The 1955 allocation is seen as historically unfair to Punjab: The Centre in 1955 allocated non-riparian Rajasthan 8 MAF of water, leaving undivided Punjab with 7.2 MAF of the Ravi-Beas waters, a division Punjab’s political class continues to cite as the root grievance.
3. Water unites Punjabi public opinion: Opposition to sharing water with Haryana cuts across political lines in Punjab. Eg. Rapper Sidhu Moosewala’s song “SYL,” released after his death, sang “Paani chhado, tibka nahin dinde (forget about water, we won’t give a drop)” and drew a large public response before being taken down.

Why does Haryana insist the canal must be completed?

1. Its own water stress is worsening: Haryana’s southern and south-western districts face falling water tables, down to 1,700 feet in places, and Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini has repeatedly appealed to Punjab to share water, this year earmarking Rs 100 crore for the canal.
2. It considers the legal position settled in its favour: Haryana points to its status as successor state, the 1981 agreement and repeated Supreme Court directions to Punjab as establishing its entitlement to the share of Ravi-Beas waters the canal was meant to carry.

What is the Eradi Tribunal assessing, and what can it not do?

1. Re-verifying the water assumed available: The Ravi-Beas Waters Tribunal, commonly called the Eradi Tribunal after its first chairman Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, was set up in 1986 to re-verify water claims. The present tribunal, headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Vineet Saran with Justices P. Naveen Rao and Suman Shyam, conducted fresh field inspections in Punjab this summer, examining river inflows, canal outflows and hydraulic structures.
2. Punjab’s position before the tribunal: Punjab’s Chief Minister and officials told the tribunal the state faces severe groundwater depletion and an acute canal water shortage, has no surplus for Haryana or Rajasthan, and that only Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir fall within the actual Ravi-Beas basin.
3. A tribunal finding cannot force construction: Whatever the tribunal concludes on whether the water assumed under the 1981 agreement still exists, it cannot itself build the canal or make Punjab’s people accept a settlement they consider damaging; only a negotiated political solution between the two states can do that.

Conclusion

The cordial language before the Supreme Court reflects political intent at the highest level, but it sits atop a dispute rooted in militancy, a legislated repudiation of the original pact and unresolved questions before the Eradi Tribunal about whether the water assumed under the 1981 agreement still exists. With Punjab’s Assembly elections approaching, whether the two states can convert this rhetorical shift into an actual settlement remains uncertain.

What is Fiscal Federalism?

1. About: Fiscal federalism is the division of financial powers, resources and responsibilities between the Union and the states, governing how revenue, expenditure and shared resources such as inter-state river waters are allocated and adjudicated.
2. Rationale: It exists because states have unequal revenue capacity and unequal access to shared natural resources, requiring a constitutional and institutional mechanism to allocate resources and resolve disputes between states and the Centre.
3. Named typology: Centre-state financial relations operate through tax devolution, grants-in-aid, and inter-state dispute mechanisms such as river water tribunals under Article 262 and the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.

Constitutional Framework Governing Fiscal Federalism

1. Article 262: Empowers Parliament to provide for the adjudication of disputes relating to the use, distribution or control of waters of inter-state rivers, and to bar the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts over such disputes if Parliament so provides.
2. Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956: Provides the statutory framework under which river water tribunals, such as the Eradi Tribunal, are constituted to adjudicate disputes between riparian states.
3. Seventh Schedule, State List Entry 17: Places water, including water supplies and irrigation, within the states’ legislative domain, subject to the Union’s power under Entry 56 of the Union List over inter-state rivers declared expedient in the public interest.

Challenges in Centre-State River Water Sharing

1. Tribunal awards without enforcement teeth: River water tribunal decisions can remain unimplemented for decades without an enforcement mechanism binding the states. Eg. The SYL canal dispute has remained unresolved for over three decades despite multiple Supreme Court directions to complete construction. Fix. Empower the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act framework with a standing implementation authority with a fixed timeline, rather than leaving execution to the state governments involved in the dispute.
2. Elections repeatedly delaying settlement: Water disputes become politically charged ahead of state elections, discouraging incumbent governments from conceding ground. Eg. The renewed conciliatory statements before the Supreme Court in the SYL case have come months ahead of the Punjab Assembly elections, raising doubts about whether they reflect a genuine shift.

Matching Previous Year Question

No direct PYQ traced in the provided files (Pass 1: SYL, Satluj-Yamuna — no match; Pass 2: inter-state river water dispute — closest match concerned the National Water Resources Council, conceptually adjacent but not a genuine SYL match).