Introduction
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court of India has instructed the Upper Yamuna River Board (UYRB) to address the Delhi Government’s request for additional water supply amidst the capital’s ongoing water crisis. This directive comes amidst disputes between Delhi and Haryana over water allocation and follows a series of legal and administrative back-and-forths involving multiple state governments and central authorities.
Background of the Water Dispute
The issue stems from a prolonged and contentious dispute between Delhi and Haryana over the sharing of Yamuna River water. Delhi, facing a severe water shortage, has repeatedly sought additional water from Haryana. The conflict intensified, necessitating intervention from higher authorities, including the Supreme Court. On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court heard Delhi’s plea for immediate release of water from Haryana, highlighting the urgency due to the city’s critical water needs.
Supreme Court’s Direction to UYRB
The Supreme Court’s Vacation Bench, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Prasanna B. Varale, emphasized that the complex nature of water-sharing disputes necessitates resolution by specialized bodies rather than judicial intervention. The Court directed the Delhi Government to approach the UYRB, constituted under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreed upon by the concerned states in 1994. The UYRB was instructed to convene a meeting and decide on Delhi’s request for an additional 150 cusecs of water on humanitarian grounds.
Legal and Procedural Aspects
This decision underscores the legal framework governing inter-state water disputes in India. The Court noted that the judiciary lacks the technical expertise to resolve such disputes, which involve intricate hydrological and administrative issues. By directing the UYRB to handle the matter, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the role of specialized bodies established through mutual agreements to manage shared resources effectively.
Himachal Pradesh’s Withdrawal of Surplus Water Statement
The case also involved the Himachal Pradesh Government, which had earlier claimed it had surplus water to transfer to Haryana for onward distribution to Delhi. However, Himachal Pradesh later retracted this statement, indicating that the previously mentioned surplus water had already been released. This retraction led to a stern warning from the Supreme Court regarding potential contempt of court. The Court emphasized the serious ramifications of such miscommunications, especially in the context of an acute water crisis.
Court’s Criticism and Implications for Public Administration
The Supreme Court’s response to Himachal Pradesh’s conflicting statements highlighted the importance of accurate and responsible communication by state authorities in legal and administrative matters. The Court criticized the casual approach of the Himachal Pradesh Government and stressed the need for clarity and consistency in official communications. This aspect of the ruling underscores the broader implications for public administration and governance, particularly in managing vital resources like water.
Ongoing Concerns and Directions for Delhi Government
The Court also addressed broader concerns about water management in Delhi, including the loss of water due to illegal activities such as the tanker mafia. The Bench directed the Delhi Government to take immediate action against these illegal practices and file an affidavit detailing the measures taken. This directive aims to ensure that available water resources are used efficiently and that systemic issues contributing to the water crisis are addressed comprehensively.
Delhi’s Initiatives and the Need for a Joint Effort
During the hearing, Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing the Delhi Government, outlined various measures being taken to mitigate the water crisis. These include public advisories to conserve water and infrastructural efforts to improve water availability. Singhvi also proposed the formation of a committee to oversee the resolution of the water-sharing dispute, emphasizing that technical and collaborative solutions are crucial to addressing the crisis effectively.
Haryana’s Response and Technical Considerations
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the Haryana Government, reiterated that the UYRB, with its technical expertise, is the appropriate forum to resolve the dispute. He emphasized that maintaining water levels in Delhi’s reservoirs, like Wazirabad, involves complex technical considerations. Divan argued that Haryana has been consistent in its water supply to Delhi, and any additional requirements should be addressed through the established mechanisms of the UYRB.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to delegate the resolution of Delhi’s plea for additional water to the UYRB reflects a pragmatic approach to inter-state resource management. By reinforcing the role of specialized bodies and emphasizing the need for accurate administrative communication, the Court aims to facilitate a more effective and collaborative resolution to the water crisis. This ruling highlights the intricate balance required in managing shared natural resources and the importance of adhering to established legal and administrative frameworks.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.