The Hindu : National : SYL canal row: court moved for contempt against Centre, Punjab

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Aug 31, 2004

National

National

SYL canal row: court moved for contempt against Centre, Punjab

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI, AUG. 30. The Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal row today took a new turn with the brother of the Haryana Chief Minister, Om Prakash Chautala, filing a petition in the Supreme Court seeking the initiation of contempt proceedings against the Centre and the Punjab Government for "disobeying" the Supreme Court's orders for construction of the SYL canal.

The petitioner, Pratap Singh Chautala, submitted that Punjab and the Centre had violated the court judgments for political gains.

"Tomorrow, residents of the State of Haryana would be forced to violate the directions of the apex court by stopping Yamuna water to the State of Delhi for keeping their bodies and souls together."

The Supreme Court had twice directed the Punjab Government and the Centre to complete the construction of the Punjab portion of the SYL canal facilitating the flow of Ravi-Beas water to Haryana.

Last week, the court also dismissed the Punjab Government's review petition making it mandatory for the Centre to go ahead with construction of the canal but the work did not begin.

`Centre too responsible'

Describing the inaction as a clear case of contempt, the petitioner said that not only Punjab but also the Centre was equally responsible for not implementing the court directions of January 15, 2002 and June 4. Referring to a Central Government application as well as the Presidential reference made in view of the law enacted by the Punjab Government annulling its water agreements with the neighbouring States, the petitioner said that both were exploiting the pendency of the two matters and were not acting in any manner for construction of the canal.

`Mockery of justice'

He said that if Punjab and the Centre were allowed to take recourse to unending litigation to deny the people of Haryana, including farmers of their right to have enough water, it would not only be a mockery of justice but would also force the people of the State to remain thirsty for ever.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National