Benefit of Probation Must Be Considered Where Statutorily Permissible: Supreme Court Flags Omission as Legal Error in Cruelty Conviction Under Section 498A IPC How Can You Be Blamed for What Happened Before You Joined?”: Supreme Court Slams Criminal Case Against HDFC Manager for Auction Held Before His Tenure Disciplinary Authority Cannot Punish Without Proof, Witnesses, or Furnishing of Enquiry Report: Supreme Court Quashes Punishment Imposed After Retirement “You Can't Disguise a Suit for Cancellation as One for Possession Just to Beat the Clock”: Supreme Court Slams Time-Barred Property Claim If the Prosecutrix Herself Is Confused About the Date, Can Rape Be Presumed?: Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere with Acquittal in Rape and Abduction Case Indian Courts Cannot Be a Safe Haven for Parental Abduction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Repatriation of Minor to Canada Quashing of Predicate Offence Does Not Automatically Nullify PMLA Prosecution: Telangana High Court Refuses to Discharge Accused in ₹50 Crore Money Laundering Case No Double Compensation: Land Valuation Already Embedded in Tree Yield When Income Capitalization Method Is Applied: Bombay High Court Clarifies Compensation Norms in Orchard Acquisition Social Security Ceilings Cannot Be Mistaken for Actual Earnings: Delhi High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Motor Accident Compensation Dispute Quashes Banashankari VI Stage Land Acquisition Over Arbitrary, Discriminatory Action: Karnataka HC Tears Into BDA Order XXXIX Rule 2A is Not Intrinsically Punitive but Aimed at Ensuring Compliance: Kerala High Court Explains Scope of Civil Contempt Powers Possession Began with Purpose, Matured into Lawful Ownership — Defendant’s Sale Was Built on Nothing: MP High Court Declares Heir Bhumiswami, Voids Sale by Stranger to Title Refundable Security Deposit Not a ‘Money Advance’: Orissa High Court Slams Wrongful Stamp Duty Demand, Orders Refund Sword of Prosecution Hanging for Ten Years Without Sanction Cannot Be Sustained: Patna High Court Quashes Cognizance Against IPS Officers in Protest Assault Case Dispute About Mutation of Land is Not a Matter in Rem But in Personam – Arbitrator Has Full Jurisdiction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Guilt of Medical Negligence Cannot Be Made Out Merely by Allegation Without Expert Evidence: Supreme Court Partially Modifies NCDRC Order in Hospital Liability Case “There Is No Presumption That Property Remains Joint After Partition” – Supreme Court Restores Validity of Sale by Coparcener Holding Self-Acquired Property Fresh Suit Maintainable Even After Rejection of Restoration Application Under Order IX Rule 4 CPC:  Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Decree Restoring Plaintiffs' Rights Academic Futures Can’t Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Lease Formalities: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Save Hotel Management Institute Disregarding a Court's Order May Seem Bold, But the Shadows of Its Consequences Are Long and Cold: Supreme Court Sentences Shaji Augustine for Civil Contempt States Must Act to Eliminate Gender Disparities and Ensure Transparency in Organ Transplants: Supreme Court Issues Comprehensive Directions

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 News