Water Row: Punjab Govt Seeks Review Of HC’s May 6 Order

Water Row

The Government of Punjab has submitted a formal application to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a substantive review or revision of its ruling dated 6 May.

The contested order compels Punjab to implement a directive issued by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan on 2 May, requiring the provisional release of an additional 4,500 cusecs of water from the Bhakra Dam to Haryana.

This directive, emergent from an inter-governmental meeting, was premised on the Bhakra Beas Management Board’s (BBMB) recommendation to address Haryana’s acute water exigency over an eight-day period.

Jurisdictional Contestation

Punjab’s petition rigorously interrogates the locus standi and administrative competence of the Union Home Secretary in adjudicating or directing inter-state water allocation, a domain statutorily reserved under Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules and typically falling under the purview of the Ministry of Power. The petition unequivocally states: “It is an admitted fact that the home secretary was not the competent authority to take any decision under Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules, and then the state of Punjab is not legally bound to comply with the said decision.”

The petition further highlights that Haryana, during oral submissions before the High Court, acknowledged that the 2 May meeting convened by the Union Home Secretary was predicated on law-and-order concerns, not resource distribution. As captured in the plea: “The state of Haryana had stated during the proceedings before this court that the meeting dated 2.05.2025 was called by the Union home secretary as it pertained to the law-and-order situation.

This further shows that the meeting could not have decided the issue of water allocation, especially when it stood statutorily referred to the Ministry of Power.”

Procedural Irregularities & Ambiguities In Agenda Setting

The petition underscores the absence of a formally delineated agenda for the 2 May meeting that would justify a decision on water reallocation. It asserts that the representation by Haryana had been referred to the Ministry of Power by the BBMB and that no decision from the appropriate statutory authority had been rendered. As such, the state of Punjab argues that any resultant directive from the Union Home Secretary lacks procedural and legal standing.

Contempt Allegations & Affidavit Discrepancy

Concurrently, the Government of Punjab has moved against BBMB Chairman Manoj Tripathi for alleged perjury and misrepresentation before the judiciary. An official spokesperson conveyed the state’s firm repudiation of Tripathi’s post-facto claim of unlawful detention. Notably, during court proceedings on 8 May, Tripathi reportedly conceded that he was merely encircled by local civilians and was escorted out safely by Punjab Police.

The spokesperson stated: “During the court proceedings on 8 May, Tripathi admitted that he was only surrounded by local citizens and was assisted by Punjab Police in leaving safely. However, in a subsequent affidavit dated 9 May, Tripathi contradictorily alleged that he was subjected to illegal detention, a claim directly conflicting with his prior in-court statement.”

Invoking Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Punjab government has requested the initiation of the judicial inquiry into a potential infraction under Section 215, which criminalizes the submission of knowingly false affidavits to a judicial authority.

Emerging Jurisprudence

The High Court now faces the dual imperative of adjudicating Punjab’s plea for review and evaluating the veracity of the BBMB chairman’s conflicting testimonies. The case is poised to contribute significantly to jurisprudence surrounding federal competency, inter-state dispute resolution, and the delineation of administrative authority between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Power.

This legal conflict exemplifies the intricate interdependencies embedded in India’s federal structure, particularly concerning the governance of shared natural resources and the institutional mechanisms for resolving inter-state administrative disputes.