Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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