Source: Indian Express

Introduction

In response to the severe water shortage plaguing Delhi amid severe heatwaves in North India, the Delhi government has taken the proactive step of seeking Supreme Court (SC) intervention. Despite implementing various administrative measures to manage water distribution, the capital faces an acute shortage, necessitating additional supply. The plea highlights the extraordinary surge in water demand, stressing the urgent need for immediate action.

Specifically, the Delhi Government has approached the SC seeking urgent directions to Haryana and Himachal Pradesh for releasing more water into the National Capital Territory (NCT) region. This move comes amidst a pressing need to address the escalating water demand triggered by unprecedented temperatures.

What is the Background of Government of NCT of Delhi v. State of Haryana and Ors?

• The Delhi government's petition to the SC outlines the urgent need for increased water supply to address the severe crisis gripping the National Capital Territory (NCT) amid soaring temperatures.
• It highlights Himachal Pradesh's willingness to share surplus water with Delhi, necessitating cooperation from Haryana to facilitate its passage through existing water channels to reach the capital via the Wazirabad barrage.
• Despite repeated requests to Haryana for cooperation in releasing the surplus water, there has been a lack of positive response, exacerbating the water scarcity crisis in Delhi.
• It stresses the critical importance of addressing the crisis promptly, noting its potential ripple effects on the responsibilities and well-being of the workforce, which has significant implications across the country.
• The Delhi government emphasizes that its plea for additional water supply serves as a temporary measure until the onset of the monsoon season, aiming to alleviate the crisis immediate impact.
• Furthermore, it points out that while alternative sources like the Sonia Vihar and Bhagirathi barrages are operating at full capacity, any substantial increase in water supply can only be facilitated through the Wazirabad barrage, necessitating Haryana's cooperation for relief.

What is Constitutional Provision Related to Water Dispute in Interstate?

• Article 262 of the Indian Constitution,1950 deals with adjudication of disputes relating to waters of interstate rivers or river valleys.
• Article 262(1) grants Parliament the authority to enact legislation for resolving disputes or grievances concerning the utilization, allocation, or regulation of trans-boundary waters within a river or river valley.
• Article 262(2) empowers Parliament to enact laws that may restrict the jurisdiction of the SC, or any other court concerning disputes or appeals mentioned in Article 262(1).
  • Rule 262(1) underscores Parliament's prerogative to promulgate specific legislation, emphasizing its exclusive responsibility in this regard.
• The term "law" under Article 13(3) encompasses various legal instruments such as acts, orders, regulations, notifications, or any binding directive within the Indian legal framework, applicable to issues pertaining to transboundary river systems.
• The provision in Article 262(2) beginning with "notwithstanding anything in this Constitution" indicates that it supersedes conflicting provisions within the Constitution.
• Article 131, delineating the SC original jurisdiction over disputes between states, is inapplicable when Article 262(2) is invoked.
• Without legislation enacted by Parliament under Article 262(2), recourse to the SC or higher judicial bodies may be sought. The discretionary use of the term "may" imply that the enactment of such legislation is contingent upon Parliament's discretion.

What was the Water Dispute Instance between Delhi and Haryana in 1995?

• A plea filed by Commodore S D Sinha on March 31, 1995, in which the SC issued an interim order directing Haryana to ensure a steady flow of water in the Yamuna River to address a drinking water shortage in Delhi.
• The order mandated the release of a specific quantity of water from the Tajewala Head to Delhi between March and June 1995, as outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by five basin states, including Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh.
• The court also directed Haryana and Uttar Pradesh to release water for Delhi's consumption from the Tajewala Head starting 6^th April 1995, until the establishment and functionality of the relevant Board and Review Committee.
• Following the 1995 ruling, two contempt petitions were filed, one by the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking and the other by Commodore Sinha, alleging deliberate violation of the court's order.

What was the 1996 Supreme Court ruling regarding Delhi's water supply from Haryana?

• In Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking v. State of Haryana, (1996) the SC affirmed Delhi's entitlement to receive sufficient water from Haryana via the Yamuna River for domestic use, ensuring the replenishment of reservoirs and treatment plants in Wazirabad and Hyderpur.
  • The court mandated Haryana to maintain the specified water supply to Delhi throughout the year, independent of the MoU, warning of serious consequences for any violation of this directive.
• In 2021, the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) filed a petition alleging deliberate disobedience of the 1996 ruling by the Haryana government, particularly concerning the declining water levels in the Wazirabad pond, which supplies water to treatment plants in Delhi.
  • In its plea, the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) asserted that the Haryana government was obstructing the water supply to Delhi by withholding 120 million gallons of water per day.
  • The Haryana government countered this claim by attributing the water scarcity in Delhi to "internal mismanagement" rather than external factors.
  • On July 23, 2021, a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, A S Bopanna, and V Ramasubramanian dismissed a series of contempt pleas filed by the Delhi Jal Board, which sought punitive action against the Haryana government.
  • The court clarified that the 1996 order was instituted as an "interim measure" until the establishment and functionality of the pertinent Board and Review Committee, implying that it cannot be invoked presently due to substantial infrastructural advancements since February 1996. Notably, the court highlighted the establishment of three additional water treatment plants at Bawana, Dwarka, and Okhla since the issuance of the 1996 order.
  • The court emphasized that the petitioner had failed to substantiate any grounds for holding the respondents in contempt.
  • Also, the court cautioned the petitioner against repeatedly filing petitions seeking relief that had been previously denied by the court.

Conclusion

The Delhi government's plea urges SC intervention due to severe water shortages exacerbated by high temperatures. It seeks urgent directives to be given to Haryana and Himachal Pradesh to release additional water to the National Capital Territory (NCT) region. Despite administrative efforts, the crisis persists, necessitating immediate action to address the escalating demand.