Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal Dispute

SYL has been the most debatable issue in the past few years. The conflict between Haryana and Punjab has questioned the nation's unity. This dispute has awakened many controversies in recent years.

Let us start from the beginning.

History of SYL

The Indus basin was separated after the partition of Pakistan and India in 1947, with Pakistan acquiring the lower sections of the Indus River and its tributaries and India gaining the upper reaches. As a result, it became problematic for countries to use and develop their water resources without harming of other nations. In 1954, while the dispute was being resolved through discussions, India had already begun to take similar steps in preparation for a treaty.

What's important here to note down is that before the partition of India and Pakistan, the Indus Basin was separated among India and Pakistan; with India gaining the upper parts of the Indus river and its tributaries whereas Pakistan getting the lower parts. The main tributaries of the Indus River are Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Satluj. The flow of Sutlej River passes through the state of Punjab. After the partition of Punjab and Haryana, the dispute arose between the states regarding the share of river water.

Waters from the Beas and the Ravi are shared

When Punjab was undivided:

When the water levels of the Beas and Ravi Rivers were estimated in 1955 to be 15.85 million acre-feet (MAF), out of this, the Center had given Jammu and Kashmir 0.65 MAF, undivided Punjab 7.20 MAF, and Rajasthan 8 MAF.

After Punjab was reformed in 1966 and the state of Haryana was carved out of Punjab, a controversy over the allocation of river water arose.

When the division of Haryana and Punjab took place

After restructuring these states, Punjab rejected the idea of sharing the waters of the rivers Ravi and Beas, claiming the Riparian principle. The riparian principle allows the land owner adjacent to a waterbody to use the water.

1976: Punjab Reorganisation Act was executed when the two states were separated; the Central Government put fresh allocations into the picture, giving 3.5 MAF (out of 7.2 MAF) to Haryana.

1981: The amount of water pouring down Beas and Ravi was recalculated to be 17.17 MAF (up from the earlier 15.85 MAF). Of this, 4.22 MAF (more than before) was given to Punjab, 3.5 MAF (equal to before), and 8.6 MAF to Rajasthan.

SYL dispute

December 1981: Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan came to an agreement to divide the waters of the Ravi and Beas in the "overall national interest and for the best use of the waters."

A canal connecting the Sutlej with the Western Yamuna Canal was envisioned to allow Haryana to utilise its fair share of the Sutlej River and its tributary, Beas, waters.

The 212-km SYL canal was designed to transport Haryana's proportion of water to the state's southern regions.

Punjab was to receive 122 km of the canal, and Haryana would receive the final 90 km.

1982: Punjab's Patiala district's SYL development was officially started by the country's then-prime minister, Indira Gandhi.

SYL canal development: Haryana has finished building its portion of the canal. But for more than three decades, Punjab has kept the construction on hold.

The canal project was never finished because it became a controversial subject in Punjab as terrorism increased there in the 1980s and 1990s.

1996: Haryana approached the SC to direct the completion of construction work on SYL.

The Punjab canal was required to be finished by orders from the Supreme Court in 2002 and 2004.

2004: The Punjab assembly passed a statute revoking all interstate agreements about the sharing of the Ravi and Beas rivers in 2004.

2016: The Supreme Court struck down (cancelled) this law. However, the Punjab government de-notified 5,376 acres of land for the canal and gave it back to its original owners a few days after the Supreme Court's ruling.

2020: Supreme Court ordered the CM of the two states to sit together, negotiate, and settle the dispute.  

Reason behind the SYL dispute

·   When the two states were bifurcated, according to section 78 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, each one was allocated 3.5 MAF, and 0.2 MAF was given to Delhi.

·   On the other hand, the new State of Punjab made no concessions to Haryana, mainly because Haryana was not a riparian State.

·   A suggestion to connect the Rivers Sutlej and Yamuna was made as part of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal scheme to guarantee the water allotted to Haryana under this legislation is fully utilised.

·   The Sutlej and Yamuna rivers will be joined by the 214-kilometre-long canal that has been proposed.

·   While Haryana petitioned the Supreme Court to order Punjab to follow the statutory judgement, Punjab filed a case against it.

Punjab’s side

-        Punjab has stated that less water has passed through the Beas and Ravi rivers over time.

-        It has requested a new tribunal to conduct a second reevaluation of the water volume.

-        Additionally, Punjab is experiencing a severe water crisis, and according to several reports, many parts of the state could see a dry spell after 2029.

-        According to studies, 79% of the state's land is over-exploited for water.

Haryana’s side

-        On its domain, the government of Haryana has already constructed 92 km of the canal.

-        Punjab should abide by the Supreme Court's decisions, according to Haryana, which claims it has trouble providing water for the state's irrigation needs.

-        Haryana has maintained that a panel has determined that it is not receiving its fair share of the water.

-        It is alleged that Haryana also has a drinking water shortage in areas where the water table has dropped by up to 1,700 feet.

Legal Aspect of SYL dispute

As per Article 143 (1) of the Constitution, the President asked the Supreme Court for its judgement on the 2004 Act. The court knocked out the 2004 statute because it was "unconstitutional."

The Punjab Termination of Water Agreements Act, 2004, which gave Punjab the unilateral right to stop sharing the waters of the Ravi and Beas with other States, was rejected by the Supreme Court.

SYL has been a source of conflict between Haryana and Punjab since then.

Indian Constitutional Provision on River Water Sharing

Entry 56 of the Union List gives the Union Government authority to regulate and develop inter-State rivers and river valleys. Water is a state subject as per entry 17 of the State List concerning water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage, and water power, subject to the provisions of entry 56 of List 1.

The water usage, distribution, or control in any interstate river or river valley may be the subject of disputes or complaints, as stated in Article 262 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

As a country, we should consider long-term solutions to this pressing issue rather than resolving interstate water disputes individually because the water resource will continue to decline.

Making water a national resource and connecting the nation's rivers to form a national water grid may be an excellent solution to this problem.