On 19 January, amidst the ongoing impasse over the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, the Haryana government informed the Supreme Court's three-judge bench led by Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, and B.V. Nagarathna that bilateral talks with its neighbouring state Punjab had failed to yield any meaningful outcome, and urged the top court to consider issuing directions requiring the Punjab government to complete the remaining portion. The proposed 211-kilometre-long canal connecting the Sutlej and Yamuna rivers was planned after the reorganisation of Punjab in 1966 but gained traction only after the centre issued a notification in 1976 stating that both states would receive 3.5 million acre-feet (MAF) of water each. They signed a water-sharing agreement in 1981 to reallocate the Ravi and Beas rivers. While the Haryana government constructed 90 km of the canal within its borders, the work in Punjab remained unfinished due to increasing pressure from opposition parties and other groups at the time.

A three-judge bench was hearing an original lawsuit brought by Haryana against Punjab in 1996, in which the plaintiff state received a favourable ruling in 2002. Despite the Supreme Court's order that Punjab builds the SYL canal within a year, and a categorical reiteration of the same position in 2004, the controversy between the two states continues to this day.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the state of Haryana, stated, “Unfortunately, the situation is that there has not been any progress. Pursuant to this court’s order in September, two meetings have been held in October and January. Chief ministers of Punjab as well as Haryana were present. Minister of Jal Shakti was presiding, just as the court had indicated. Over the last five years, a total of nine meetings have been held.” He added, “This is a case where there is a suit, a decree, directions passed in execution, subsequent rounds, state legislation, presidential reference, a judgement of this court sitting in a Constitution Bench, and further proceedings.” The senior counsel, citing the breakdown of diplomatic talks, urged the court to “consider what further directions may need to be issued to bring it to a closure”, making a case for judicial intervention in the form of orders.

The court agreed to consider Divan’s proposal at the next hearing on March 15, since an adjournment was requested on behalf of the Union of India.

The Punjab legislature also passed the Termination of Agreement Act in 2004, which sought to terminate the province's water-sharing agreement with Haryana. However, this act was declared unconstitutional in 2016, and Punjab's request to be relieved of its obligation to complete the river canal construction was firmly denied when the case was heard by the Supreme Court on the basis of a presidential referral. A Constitution Bench led by Justice Anil R. Dave issued the ruling, “The agreement could not have been unilaterally terminated by one of the parties by exercising its legislative power and if any party or any state does so, such unilateral action of a particular state has to be declared contrary to the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.” A 2004 decree authorising the central government to acquire over the canal works from the obstinate state was also reiterated.

Case Title: State of Haryana v. State of Punjab 
Citation: Original Suit No. 6 of 1996