PUNJAB GOVERNMENT FILES REVIEW PETITION; DISPUTES WATER DIVERSION TO HARYANA, SEEKS REVIEW OF MAY 6 JUDGMENT
Chandigarh, May 12:
The Punjab Government has filed a review petition in court challenging the May 6 order regarding water release, terming it incorrect and based on misleading information presented before the hon’ble court.
Giving further details, the official spokesperson said, the Punjab Government informed in the petition that the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) is attempting to illegally divert Punjab’s water to Haryana at the behest of the BJP-led Central Government. The Punjab Government has raised serious concerns over the procedural irregularities and misrepresentation of facts that led to the disputed court order.
The Government has clarified that attempts were made to mislead the court by incorrectly portraying the May 2 meeting as a formal decision-making forum. The Punjab Government informed that no official minutes of the meeting were ever provided to state authorities. Only a press note was circulated, which cannot be considered an official record of decisions made.
How can an order be implemented when no formal decision was made in the first place?”, questioned the state government, saying that the BBMB has overstepped its authority by attempting to release water to Haryana without completing the required legal process.
The Punjab Government highlighted that even the union Government failed to produce official minutes of the May 2 meeting when directed by the court, instead presenting only what they termed a “discussion record.”
The review application filed by the State of Punjab seeks reconsideration of the court orders dated May 6, 2025, which directed compliance with decisions made during the May 2, 2025 meeting. The Punjab Government contends that the said order is illegal as the court was misled into believing that the meeting held under the chairmanship of the Union Home Secretary was conducted under Rule 7 of the 1974 Rules, which requires a reference made by the chairman.
However, the Hon’ble court was not apprised that the said meeting was only an informal meeting regarding the dispute regarding allocation of extra water.
The petition further states that no formal minutes of the May 2, 2025 meeting were ever recorded. Only a press note was produced before the court, which formed the basis of the misleading information that led to the court order.
To comply with the court order dated May 6, 2025, the Punjab Government asked for the minutes of the meeting via email on May 8, 2025. However, only a press note was provided in response, confirming that no formal minutes were ever recorded, a fact that was acknowledged during the hearing on May 8, 2025 in contempt application filed by the Gram Panchayat.
It was also apprised that even the BBMB itself demanded the copy of the decision dated May 2, 2025, but no such documentation was provided. Despite this lack of proper authorization, the BBMB proceeded to release water to the State of Haryana without legal authority.
The Hon’ble court directed counsel for the Union of India to produce the minutes of the May 2, 2025 meeting and to apprise the court regarding the competent authority under Rule 7 empowered to decide on such references. In response, the Union of India could not produce minutes of the meeting, instead submitting what they called a “record of discussion.” They also informed that the Secretary of Power is the competent authority under Rule 7. Thus, there is no executable decision has been issued by the competent authority.
Further, the State of Haryana had requested the BBMB on April 29, 2025, to refer the matter to the competent authority under Rule 7. While this request was forwarded to the competent authority by the BBMB Chairman. However, no decision was rendered by the competent authority and without waiting for the decision of the authority in order to illegally help State of Haryana, a decision was taken by the BBMB itself on May 3, 2025.
The Punjab Government has called upon the court to review its order in light of these serious procedural violations and misrepresentations.
