Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release of Surplus Water to Tackle Delhi’s Acute Water Crisis

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


“The urgency of the situation necessitates immediate action,” says Supreme Court in a directive to Himachal Pradesh and Haryana

New Delhi, June 2024 — In a decisive move to address the acute water crisis faced by Delhi amidst a severe heatwave, the Supreme Court has directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to release 137 cusecs of surplus drinking water from the Hathnikund Barrage. The court has also ordered the State of Haryana to facilitate the uninterrupted flow of this water to the Wazirabad Barrage in Delhi.

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, emphasized the critical need for immediate action in light of the extraordinary heatwave conditions exacerbating Delhi’s water scarcity. The court’s directive follows a detailed discussion held by the Upper Yamuna River Board (UYRB) on June 5, 2024, which was convened to address the urgent water needs of Delhi.

The court noted the severe impact of the heatwave on Delhi’s water supply and the compelling evidence presented by the Delhi government. “The acute shortage of drinking water due to the ongoing heatwave condition is undisputed,” the bench remarked, highlighting the dire situation faced by Delhi residents.

The court’s decision was grounded in humanitarian considerations and the necessity to protect the fundamental right to water. “The extraordinary circumstances warrant an extraordinary remedy,” Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra stated. The bench underscored the importance of inter-state cooperation in mitigating the crisis, urging Haryana to facilitate the flow of surplus water from Himachal Pradesh to Delhi.

“The urgency of the situation necessitates immediate action,” the court observed, directing Himachal Pradesh to release the surplus water by June 7, 2024, with prior intimation to Haryana. The judgment further detailed specific measures to ensure the efficient use of the released water, including separating commercial and domestic water supply and improving water distribution efficiency.

The Government of NCT of Delhi filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking directives for the release of surplus drinking water from the Hathnikund Barrage. The petition highlighted the acute shortage of water in Delhi due to an unprecedented heatwave. The Supreme Court had previously instructed the UYRB to convene an urgent meeting to address the issue, resulting in the recommendations that formed the basis of the court’s order.

The Supreme Court’s order is expected to provide immediate relief to Delhi’s residents, who are grappling with severe water shortages. By ensuring the release and efficient use of surplus water, the judgment sets a precedent for inter-state cooperation in addressing environmental and humanitarian crises.

“This landmark decision underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly in times of crisis,” commented Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate representing the petitioner. The judgment is anticipated to influence future water-sharing agreements and crisis management strategies across states.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for June 10, 2024, to review the compliance of its directives and ensure the effective implementation of the measures recommended by the UYRB.

Date of Order: June 6, 2024

Government of NCT of Delhi vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Similar News