Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

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.

Latest Legal News