Bhakra Nangal Dam| HC Seeks BBMB Reply On Punjab’s Plea Against Order To Release Extra Water To Haryana
Today, 14th May, The High Court has sought a response on Punjab’s plea to recall the order directing release of extra water to Haryana, following a May 2 meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary on the Bhakra Nangal issue.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday requested the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) to respond to the Punjab government’s application seeking to recall a recent ruling that mandated compliance with a Union directive to release additional water to Haryana.
Previously, the Court directed the Punjab government and Punjab Police to refrain from interfering with the operations of the Bhakra Nangal dam. It also ordered the Punjab government to follow the decisions made during a May 2 meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary, which called for the release of extra water to Haryana.
Now, the Punjab government has sought to set-aside this directive, arguing that the Home Secretary lacks the authority to make such a decision, as the Secretary of the Ministry of Power is the appropriate authority under the relevant regulations.
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel issued a notice regarding the application and scheduled a hearing for May 20. The Nangal dam has been contentious, with allegations that the Punjab Police obstructed the BBMB from releasing additional water needed by Haryana and parts of Rajasthan.
Following these issues, the Union Home Secretary convened a meeting to address the situation and ordered the release of more water to Haryana. On May 6, the Court directed Punjab to comply with this order.
This directive was based on a petition from BBMB, which claimed that the Punjab Police had taken operational control of the Nangal dam. In response, the Punjab government is contesting the May 6 ruling.
Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh, representing the Punjab government, argued that Article 262 of the Constitution of India restricts the jurisdiction of courts, including the Supreme Court, in inter-State water disputes.
Singh asserted,
“So they [BBMB] virtually succeeded in getting a mandamus against law by misrepresenting the facts,”
He further noted that both Punjab and Haryana had overdrawn their water shares during the depletion cycle, a time when rainfall is absent.
He added,
“No State can draw water from another State’s share unless there is a consensus on the issue,”
Singh also pointed out that, since no consensus had been achieved at the BBMB meeting, Haryana’s request was referred to the Central government under the rules. He questioned the BBMB’s authority to make a decision on April 30, 2025, which was later incorporated into the May 2 directive.
In response, Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain stated that Punjab’s officials had participated in the meeting led by the Union Home Secretary. Jain remarked that the Punjab government had not contested the BBMB’s April 30 decision.
Singh countered that if the Union government’s competent authority ruled against Punjab, the State would pursue its legal options.
He added,
“The order is yet to come,”
Senior Advocate Rajesh Garg, representing the BBMB, noted that the Punjab government could have filed a writ of prohibition against these decisions but chose to file only a modification application.
Meanwhile, Haryana Advocate General Pravindra Singh Chauhan emphasized the state’s need for water for agriculture, clarifying that Haryana was not requesting water from Punjab’s share.
Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh, along with Additional Advocates General Maninder Singh and Chanchal Kumar Singla, represented Punjab.
Senior Advocate Rajesh Garg represented the BBMB, while Advocate General Pravindra Singh Chauhan and Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan represented Haryana. The Union of India was represented by Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain and Senior Panel Counsel Dheeraj Jain.
