The Centre has initiated a fresh attempt to resolve the long-standing and contentious Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal water dispute between Punjab and Haryana, with the Union Ministry of Jal Shakti summoning both Chief Ministers — Bhagwant Mann of Punjab and Nayab Singh Saini of Haryana — for a crucial meeting around July 10 in Delhi.
The move comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s stern reminder to the Centre in May, directing it to actively mediate and help find an amicable resolution to the decades-old issue that has remained a thorn in Punjab-Haryana relations for over 46 years. The Apex Court, which has fixed August 13 as the next hearing in the matter, had earlier criticized the Centre’s passive stance and asked the Union Jal Shakti Minister to take a proactive role instead of being a “mute spectator”.
Sources indicated that Union Jal Shakti Minister CR Patil has now taken the lead, reaching out to both state governments for a dialogue aimed at breaking the deadlock. His intervention follows the unsuccessful attempts of his predecessor, Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, who had facilitated three rounds of discussions between the two states without any breakthrough.
From Punjab’s perspective, the renewed effort has stirred unease. The state has consistently opposed the SYL canal on both historical and emotional grounds, citing acute water scarcity and the state’s inability to share what it considers its lifeline. The State Government, led by Chief Minister Mann, is yet to officially react to the Centre’s letter, but it is expected to reiterate its longstanding stand in the upcoming meeting.
The SYL Dispute
The dispute dates back to 1981 when a water-sharing agreement was signed between Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan. To implement this, a 214-kilometre-long canal — Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) — was proposed, with 122 km passing through Punjab and the remaining 92 km through Haryana. While Haryana completed construction on its portion, Punjab stalled the project in 1982, arguing that it did not have surplus water to share. Punjab’s opposition gained legal and legislative traction in 2004 when its assembly passed a law terminating the 1981 agreement. However, the Supreme Court, in a significant ruling in 2016, struck down Punjab’s law and upheld the original agreement. Despite this, the construction of the canal in Punjab remains frozen.
SC Rebuke and Legal Timeline
On May 6 this year, the Supreme Court expressed its frustration over Punjab’s reluctance to honour the canal construction order. Justice BR Gavai had lashed out at the Punjab Government, terming its move to denotify the land acquired for the SYL canal as “blatant defiance” of the Court’s directive. “If this is not arbitrariness, then what is?” he remarked, pointing out that land once acquired for public infrastructure was summarily released without court approval. The top court's warning has put additional pressure on Punjab ahead of the July 10 meeting, with the Union Government now stepping in directly to mediate and push toward a resolution before the August 13 hearing.
Political Sensitivities in Punjab
The SYL issue remains one of the most emotive and politically sensitive matters in Punjab. Political parties across the spectrum, including the ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), have consistently taken a firm stand against the canal, arguing that Punjab’s rivers are already overexploited, and further diversion would devastate its agrarian economy. Successive governments in Punjab have maintained that there is no water to spare for Haryana and that the ground reality has drastically changed since the original agreement was signed in 1981. The state also points to environmental concerns and depletion of groundwater as additional reasons to resist the project.
While the upcoming Delhi meeting offers a diplomatic window to revisit the issue, Punjab is unlikely to budge from its stated position. With the Supreme Court monitoring the progress and an impending hearing in August, the Centre’s mediation effort will face the uphill task of balancing constitutional obligations with ground realities and political sentiments — especially in Punjab, where the canal is seen not just as a legal issue but as a question of survival.
