SYL canal row; SC asks Haryana, Punjab to maintain law and order

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it clear that its verdict allowing construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna link (SYL) canal has to be executed and asked Haryana and Punjab to maintain law and order "at any cost" in view of a proposed protest by a political outfit tomorrow over the inter-state water row.

Indian National Lok Dal (INLD), Haryana's main opposition party, has asked its workers to gather tomorrow at Ambala and march inside Punjab to start digging the SYL canal.

"Haryana and Punjab shall maintain law and order at any cost. State of Punjab and Haryana will take action under the law...The law and order should not be violated in any manner," a bench of Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy said.

After taking note of submissions of senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Haryana, the bench said that the decree and orders passed by the apex court, allowing the SYL canal, have to be executed and the canal has to be built.

The bench, however, referred to the submissions of senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, representing Punjab, that "good people" from both sides should sit together and find an amicable solution to the issue and said this was one of the possibilities.

It told Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre, that the central government could act as an arbitrator if both sides are willing to settle.

However, the legal aspect is that "the highest court of the land has given its verdicts and how can that be not implemented," the bench said.

The court said its earlier interim order of status quo will continue till further orders and fixed the case for further hearing on March 2, while again rejecting Punjab's submission that the case be listed after the poll results.

Punjab, in its affidavit, has maintained that the Punjab Termination of Water Agreement Act of 2004 was still in force and discharges it of all responsibility to provide water to other states.

It claimed that the SC verdict that the 2004 Act was unconstitutional did not render the law invalid as the apex court had only given an opinion on the Presidential reference.