"This judgement has brought smile on the face of every Haryanvi because the state would get its legitimate share of surplus water of 3.5 million acre feet (MAF) from the Ravi-Beas River", he said. The deputy CM also said that he has asked the state advocate-general to find out ways to legally challenge SC's water-sharing verdict.
The Termination of Agreements Act 2004 was passed by the Vidhan Sabha in 2004 when Captain Amarinder Singh was the Chief Minister. In 1990, a chief engineer and his assistant were killed by militants apparently to protest the construction of the canal; 30 labourers working at a project site near Chandigarh were killed. Amarinder hopes that doing so, and turning the people of Punjab against Haryana and the SAD-BJP combine, would yield rich political dividends for the Congress in the state.
The court answered in negative all the questions raised before it through presidential reference under Article 143 of the Constitution, stating that the Punjab water Law is unconstitutional. Interacting with media, Sukhbir Badal ensured that the Punjab government won't let go even a single drop of water to Haryana.
Talking to reporters after the meeting, Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal said that water from Punjab rivers would not be allowed to go out of the state.
Slamming Congress for playing politics, the Punjab CM said that he wants to assure the people of Punjab that only Akalis can do it and resignation by Congress MLAs is just a drama.
Instagram Stories Just Introduced 3 Very Useful New Features
Instagram launched Boomerang more than a year ago, and now you can use it without having to download a separate app . Judging by what we have seen of these features so far, they may actually change the way we use Instagram .
While passing the judgement in Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal controversy, the Supreme Court on Thursday termed the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004, meant to deny Haryana its share of Sutlej-Yamuna water, as null and void. Following the court order, the Centre will take over the canal and continue the construction work on it.
On Haryana's demand, Punjab had said that after its creation in 1966, it had become a riparian state of the Yamuna and was getting its share.
"The Punjab act can not be said to be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India and by virtue of the said act, the state of Punjab can not nullify the (apex court's 2002 and 2004) judgment and decree and terminate the agreement dated 31st December, 1981". Haryana had taken strong objection to this.
Khattar said the state government fast tracked the hearing on presidential reference which had been pending in the Supreme Court for the last 12 years. Punjab, however, pleaded that since the SC verdicts on SYL were no longer valid in view of the 2004 Act, the 2016 legislation for return of SYL land did not violate any SC order.