The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday granted the Punjab government a final opportunity to respond to the replies submitted by the Central Government, the state of Haryana, and the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB). These replies oppose Punjab’s plea seeking a recall of a key directive from the court’s May 6 order, which instructed Punjab to release additional water to Haryana in light of the ongoing water crisis in the state.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel granted Punjab an additional day to file its rejoinder, following a request from senior advocate Gurminder Singh, who appeared on behalf of the state. The matter is now scheduled for hearing on May 22.
The current dispute began on April 23, when Haryana requested 8,500 cusecs of water from the Bhakra-Nangal project—an additional 4,500 cusecs above its usual share. The proposal was strongly opposed by the Punjab government.
The hearing concerns Punjab’s application to recall or modify direction number three of the High Court’s May 6 order, issued in an ongoing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) related to BBMB operations and water distribution. When the matter was heard on Tuesday, senior advocate Gurminder Singh argued that the affidavits submitted by Haryana, the Central Government, and the BBMB contained “misstatements.”
In a stern affidavit filed by M L Rana, Chief Engineer of Haryana’s Irrigation and Water Resources Department, the state accused Punjab of trying to evade contempt proceedings and hindering the lawful operations of the BBMB. Terming Punjab's actions as an "abuse of the judicial process," Haryana stated that the police deployment by Punjab on May 1 at the Bhakra-Nangal Dam to block water release was "unconstitutional" and could set a dangerous precedent.
Haryana highlighted its severe water crisis, particularly during May when the Kharif sowing season begins, and asserted that the BBMB's decision to allocate 8,500 cusecs of water was a technical determination, not a political or inter-state water dispute.
The state accused Punjab of habitual defiance, citing its long-standing failure to construct the Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal despite multiple court orders. Haryana also claimed that Punjab had overdrawn its water share by 22.45 percent over the past two decades, while Haryana's excess usage was only 7.68 percent.
The affidavit also detailed how BBMB’s decisions, upheld in multiple meetings between April 23 and May 3, were blocked by Punjab, including through the use of force. Despite a May 2 meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary where Punjab reportedly did not object to releasing 4,500 cusecs to Haryana, the state later prevented implementation, Haryana claimed.
In its response, the BBMB described Punjab’s application as a delaying tactic. The Board pointed out that Punjab only filed its challenge after the court issued contempt directions on May 9, rather than immediately following the May 6 ruling.
The BBMB rejected Punjab’s claim that the court had addressed a water-sharing issue, clarifying that the case was about preventing interference in the BBMB’s operations. The Board defended its decision to release 8,500 cusecs of water to Haryana, stating it was a technical determination made through proper channels and not subject to Punjab’s veto.
The BBMB also highlighted that Punjab's deployment of police at the Nangal Headworks was a deliberate attempt to obstruct the court-mandated water release. The Board noted that Punjab had not followed the legal procedure of making a representation to the Centre under Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules.
An affidavit filed by Anil Kumar Gautam, Deputy Director at the BBMB desk in the Ministry of Power, also criticised Punjab's lack of cooperation. It outlined the sequence of events, starting with the technical committee's decision on April 23 to release water, followed by the BBMB's resolution on April 30 confirming this decision, and the subsequent meetings in which the release was reaffirmed — even in the context of national security concerns due to tensions between India and Pakistan.
The Centre pointed out that Punjab had not submitted any formal representation under Rule 7 to challenge the BBMB's decision. Instead, it obstructed operations on the ground. The Centre also referred to the rising water levels in the Bhakra Dam, indicating that there was no shortage of supply, and called for the dismissal of Punjab's application with costs.
Follow us
