The Punjab government on Thursday informed the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the true purpose of a May 2 meeting chaired by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan was misrepresented in court, arguing that it was called to discuss law and order — not water sharing — and that this critical fact was “concealed” during earlier proceedings.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel was hearing the Punjab government’s plea to review or modify its May 6 order that directed the state to comply with the decision taken during the May 2 meeting, which ordered the release of an additional 4,500 cusecs of water to Haryana.
Senior advocate Gurminder Singh, representing Punjab, stated that the May 2 meeting was strictly convened for law and order concerns, and not to deliberate on the contentious issue of water allocation. “The court was not informed that the actual agenda of the meeting was law and order. This crucial fact was concealed,” Singh told reporters after the hearing.
Punjab further submitted that the decision to release extra water to Haryana was taken without jurisdiction, asserting that the Union Home Secretary lacked the authority to decide on water distribution — a matter which, under constitutional provisions, falls within the domain of technical and statutory bodies such as the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB).
Singh reiterated Punjab’s stance that law and order is a state subject, and under such circumstances, the state is well within its rights to deploy police forces without interfering in BBMB operations. “We were not obstructing the BBMB’s functioning,” he emphasized.
The May 6 High Court order had specifically restrained Punjab and its departments, including the police, from interfering in the functioning and regulation of the Bhakra-Nangal Dam.
Punjab contended that the BBMB meeting held on April 28 to address Haryana’s water demands ended without a resolution. Subsequently, Haryana requested the BBMB chairman to escalate the matter to the Union Government under Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules, 1974, which was done on April 29.
However, Punjab argued that the High Court was not apprised of this referral, nor that the May 2 meeting followed as a law and order intervention rather than a water-sharing decision.
The state has accused the Centre, Haryana, and the BBMB of misrepresenting facts to the court and misleading the bench into directing the release of water based on flawed premises.
Arguments in the matter are set to continue in the High Court on Friday.
In their May 20 replies, Haryana, the BBMB, and the Centre opposed Punjab’s review plea, with Haryana alleging that Punjab’s petition is “a complete abuse of the process of the court” aimed at evading contempt proceedings.
Punjab and Haryana have long-standing disputes over water distribution from the Bhakra dam, with the current AAP-led Punjab government asserting that Haryana has already exhausted its allocated share.
