Supreme Court today held as unconstitutional the 2004 law passed by Punjab to terminate the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal water sharing agreement with Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi and Chandigarh. <br/><br/>The judgement made it clear that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 is "unconstitutional" and Punjab could not have taken a "unilateral" decision to terminate the water sharing agreement with neighbouring states. <br/><br/>The judgement came on the presidential reference of 2004 on the controversy relating to sharing of water from SYL canal. A five-judge bench headed by Justice A R Dave was unanimous in holding that all the four questions of Presidential reference have to be answered in the negative. <br/><br/>The matter was referred to the apex court for the opinion by then President APJ Abdul Kalam on the constitutional validity of the law passed by then Punjab government-led by Captain Amrinder Singh. The law sought to nullify the court verdicts and unilaterally terminating the almost three-dacade old SYL water sharing agreement.<br/><br/>Today's judgement implies that the 2004 Act was not in consonance with the apex court judgement of 2003 which had mandated the construction of the SYL canal that has been stalled. The controversial 1981 water sharing agreement came into being after Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966.

Supreme Court today held as unconstitutional the 2004 law passed by Punjab to terminate the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal water sharing agreement with Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi and Chandigarh. <br/><br/>The judgement made it clear that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 is "unconstitutional" and Punjab could not have taken a "unilateral" decision to terminate the water sharing agreement with neighbouring states. <br/><br/>The judgement came on the presidential reference of 2004 on the controversy relating to sharing of water from SYL canal. A five-judge bench headed by Justice A R Dave was unanimous in holding that all the four questions of Presidential reference have to be answered in the negative. <br/><br/>The matter was referred to the apex court for the opinion by then President APJ Abdul Kalam on the constitutional validity of the law passed by then Punjab government-led by Captain Amrinder Singh. The law sought to nullify the court verdicts and unilaterally terminating the almost three-dacade old SYL water sharing agreement.<br/><br/>Today's judgement implies that the 2004 Act was not in consonance with the apex court judgement of 2003 which had mandated the construction of the SYL canal that has been stalled. The controversial 1981 water sharing agreement came into being after Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966.

The Supreme Court today held as unconstitutional the 2004 law passed by Punjab to terminate the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal water sharing agreement with Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi and Chandigarh. <br/><br/>The judgement made it clear that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 is "unconstitutional" and Punjab could not have taken a "unilateral" decision to terminate the water sharing agreement with neighbouring states. <br/><br/>The judgement came on the presidential reference of 2004 on the controversy relating to sharing of water from SYL canal. A five-judge bench headed by Justice A R Dave was unanimous in holding that all the five questions of Presidential reference have to be answered in the negative.<br/><br/>Today's judgement implies that the 2004 Act was not in consonance with the apex court judgement of 2003 which had mandated the construction of the SYL canal that has been stalled.<br/><br/> Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal refused to comment on the verdict but said the matter will be discussed in Punjab cabinet and core committee of Shiromani Akali Dal. Punjab Cabinet is meeting today to discuss the situation after the verdict.

The Supreme Court today held as unconstitutional the 2004 law passed by Punjab to terminate the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal water sharing agreement with Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi and Chandigarh. <br/><br/>The judgement made it clear that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 is "unconstitutional" and Punjab could not have taken a "unilateral" decision to terminate the water sharing agreement with neighbouring states. <br/><br/>The judgement came on the presidential reference of 2004 on the controversy relating to sharing of water from SYL canal. A five-judge bench headed by Justice A R Dave was unanimous in holding that all the five questions of Presidential reference have to be answered in the negative.<br/><br/><br/>Today's judgement implies that the 2004 Act was not in consonance with the apex court judgement of 2003 which had mandated the construction of the SYL canal that has been stalled.