Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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