Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High 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