Rajasthan High Court Orders Tehsildar To Personally Pay ₹2 Lakh Compensation For 53-Day Illegal Detention Despite Suspension Of Sentence Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

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