The Supreme Court recently called Punjab's de-notification of land acquired for the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal an act of "high-handedness"

Punjab was reminded by the court of its 2017 ruling to preserve the status quo on land and property connected to the canal. The SYL canal was designed to efficiently distribute water from the Beas and Ravi rivers.

The project called for building a 214-kilometer canal, of which 92-kilometers would be in Haryana and 122-kilometers in Punjab.

Context of the Conflict:

The SYL canal was a crucial component of the 1981 agreement between Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan to share the Ravi-Beas waters.

• 1996 Suit: Haryana brought a lawsuit to finish the canal.
• 2002 Verdict: Punjab was ordered to finish its share after the Supreme Court decided in favor of Haryana.
• 2004 Action: Punjab unilaterally stopped construction after passing the Termination of Agreements Act.
• 2016 Decision: Punjab's 2004 Act was overturned by a Constitution Bench as constitutional.

Recent Court Orders: To supervise matters pertaining to land, the Supreme Court designated the Union Home Secretary, Punjab Chief Secretary, and DGP Punjab as Receivers.

It called on the Center, Punjab, and Haryana to cooperate in finding a solution that would satisfy everyone. The issue will be relisted on August 13 if it remains unresolved.

India's Inter-State Water Sharing Dispute Resolution Mechanism

• Provisions of the Constitution: The Indian Constitution's Article 262 gives Parliament the authority to enact laws that resolve interstate river water issues.
• Prohibits the Supreme Court or any other court from having jurisdiction over such cases in the event that a statute is passed under this clause.

In accordance with Article 262 of the Indian Constitution, Parliament passed the Acts listed below:

The River Board Act of 1956 gave the federal government the authority, after consulting with state governments, to create boards for interstate rivers and river valleys. But as of yet, no board has been established.

Under the 1956 Inter-State Water Dispute Act, the Central Government may establish a Tribunal after attempting to settle the conflict through negotiations if the State Government or Governments request it. The Supreme Court may challenge the Tribunal's operations, but it will not contest the Tribunal's award or formula.

In 2002, the Sarkaria Commission's main recommendations were included into the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. After receiving the request, the Tribunal must be established within a year. The award must be made by the tribunal within a maximum of five years.

The Tribunal's decision is not immediately enforceable, and the parties involved have three months from the date of the award to request clarification. Tribunal awards will be enforceable in the same way as a Supreme Court ruling or decree. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the award, which is final.

Inter-State River Disputes Tribunal Problems

Extended Procedures and Postponements: Decisions from tribunals frequently take decades, negating the goal of prompt resolution. From 1990 to 2007, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal took almost 17 years to issue its final decision. Because there are no enforcement measures in place, implementation lags even after a decision is made.

Judicial Review: States or impacted parties may petition the Supreme Court under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) and Article 32 by citing Article 21 (Right to Life), even though the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act states that tribunal rulings are final.

Lack of Multidisciplinary in Tribunal Composition: Most tribunals are presided over by current or former judges. It results in an excessive dependence on judicial reasoning rather than technical-scientific analysis.

New and Suggested Reforms:

• 2019's Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill (Awaiting Congressional Action):
• suggests a permanent tribunal with a deadline for decision-making.
• establishes a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) to engage in pre-trial discussions.
• Technical experts such as engineers, hydrologists, and ecologists must be permanent members of the tribunal.
• The Central Water Commission (CWC) has the jurisdiction to create an independent water data authority.
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Effective dispute resolution can be achieved through mediation and negotiation by impartial parties or the Center.