Plaintiff In Title Suit Must Prove Own Case On Independent Evidence, Cannot Rely On Weakness Of Defence: Supreme Court Advocate Commissioner's Failure To Localize Land Per Title Deeds Fatal To Encroachment Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon, Can Be Motive For False Implication As Much As For Crime: Allahabad High Court Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged Specific Performance Denied If Buyer Fails To Prove Continuous Readiness With Funds; Part-Payment Can't Be Forfeited Without Specific Clause: Delhi High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court Prolonged Incarceration Militates Against Article 21, Constitutional Principles Must Override Section 37 NDPS Rigors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Onus On Individual To Prove Claim Of 'Fear Of Religious Persecution' For Exemption Under Foreigners Act: Calcutta High Court Direct Recruits Cannot Claim Seniority From A Date Prior To Their Entry Into The Cadre: Orissa High Court Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court No Right To Blanket Regularization For Contractual Staff; State Must Timely Fill Sanctioned Vacancies Under Reserved Quota: Supreme Court Non-Signatory Collaborator Under 'Deed Of Joint Undertaking' Can Invoke Arbitration Clause As A 'Veritable Party': Supreme Court Insolvency Proceedings Cannot Be Used As Coercive Recovery Mechanism For Complex Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To Sale Cannot Challenge Transfer Under PTCL Act After Long Delay: Supreme Court SC/ST Act | Proceedings To Annul Sale Illegal If Initiated By Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To The Transaction: Supreme Court Consumers Cannot Be Burdened With Tariff Charges Beyond Period Of Service Delivery: Supreme Court Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Signature Mismatch Or Incomplete Signature Attracts Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | High Court Cannot Let Off Accused In NI Act Case By Ordering Only Cheque Amount Payment Without Interest Or Penalty: Supreme Court

Supreme Court refers water sharing dispute between Delhi, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh to Upper Yamuna River Board (UYRB) for resolution

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized the critical role of specialized bodies in resolving complex inter-state water disputes. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, referred the dispute over the release of surplus drinking water from the Hathni Kund Barrage to the Upper Yamuna River Board (UYRB). This decision underscores the judiciary's recognition of the limitations of the court in adjudicating technical and specialized issues related to water sharing.

The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by the Government of NCT of Delhi, seeking directions for the release of surplus drinking water from the Hathni Kund Barrage by the states of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh to address acute water scarcity in Delhi. The petition highlighted the severe water shortage faced by Delhi due to extraordinary heat wave conditions and sought additional water to meet the city's needs.

The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of relying on specialized bodies like the UYRB to handle complex inter-state water disputes. "This Court does not possess the necessary expertise to decide such intricate matters involving technical aspects of water sharing between states," the bench noted. The judgment acknowledged past instances where specialized bodies were deemed more suitable for resolving such disputes.

The court referred to the emergent meeting convened by the UYRB on June 5, 2024, which discussed the water crisis in Delhi and the feasibility of releasing additional water from Himachal Pradesh and Haryana. The UYRB's minutes of the meeting were cited, highlighting the conflicting positions of the states involved. Himachal Pradesh initially agreed to release 137 cusecs of surplus water but later retracted, citing inaccurate earlier statements about water availability. Haryana also contended it faced similar water scarcity and could not provide additional water.

The Supreme Court directed the Government of Delhi to formally request Haryana for 150 cusecs of additional water on humanitarian grounds. The court underscored the extraordinary heat wave conditions and the acute shortage of drinking water in Delhi. "Given the severe crisis, the UYRB should expeditiously decide on Delhi's request for additional water," the bench stated.

Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra remarked, "The issue concerning sharing of Yamuna water between the states is complex and sensitive. This Court does not have the expertise to decide such matters, which should be left to the specialized body, the UYRB, constituted with the agreement of the parties."

The Supreme Court's judgment reaffirms the importance of specialized bodies like the UYRB in resolving inter-state water disputes. By referring the matter to the UYRB and directing it to expedite the decision on Delhi's request for additional water, the court underscores the need for expertise in handling such complex issues. This decision is expected to streamline the process of resolving water disputes and ensure a more efficient and informed approach to water resource management in India.

Date of Decision: 13th June 2024

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

Latest Legal News