Latest news with #PunjabReorganisationAct
The Hindu
08-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Water dispute: HC dismisses Punjab's plea seeking recall or modification of May 6 order
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the Punjab government's plea seeking a recall or modification of its May 6 order which asked it to release water to Haryana. Punjab had sought a recall or modification of the high court's order pertaining to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan's May 2 decision to release 4,500 cusecs of extra water to Haryana. The high court had directed Punjab to abide by the decision of the meeting held on May 2 under the chairmanship of the Union Home Secretary. Punjab had alleged concealment of "material facts" by the Centre, Haryana and the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) which led to the May 6 high court order. In the order that came out on Saturday, the division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed the Punjab government's plea. Referring to the state of Punjab's assertion that disputes relating to water between two or more states emanate from Article 262 of the Constitution, pursuant to which Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, the court said, "Merely because this court held that Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 is a manifestation of Article 262 (1) of the Constitution, does not help the stance of State of Punjab in any manner in its attempt to seek re-calling/ modification of the order, unless the State of Punjab can show that because of this error, any prejudice has been caused to it, which is certainly not the case herein." The major thrust of Punjab's argument is as regards material concealment on the part of BBMB and Haryana by contending that the April 29 letter of Haryana, requesting the BBMB Chairman to refer the matter to the Centre was not brought to the notice of the court. "Taking up the ground of non-disclosure of the letter, it is obvious from reading of the said letter that the extraordinary meeting of the BBMB dated April 28 was held to execute the resolution dated April 23 of the Technical Committee of BBMB. However, this letter clearly reveals that the State of Haryana was aggrieved by non-execution of resolution of BBMB, especially regarding release of 8500 cusecs of water to Haryana. "Contents of letter April 29 further elicit that stance taken therein was that the BBMB was being monopolised by Punjab. Thus, the State of Haryana under Explanation - II to Rule 7 of 1974 Rules, requested the Chairman of the BBMB to refer the matter to Centre for implementation of earlier resolution," said the order. A close scrutiny of Rule 7 of 1974 Rules, along with both the explanations, reveals that in case of difference of opinion among the members on any question of policy or the rights of any of the participating states, the chairman shall refer the matter to the central government, which shall decide the same, it said. The court further stated that the April 29 letter does not relate to any dissent by Haryana but contains a request to the BBMB Chairman to refer the matter to the central government for the execution of the minutes of the April 28 meeting. Thus, in essence, the letter dated April 29 does not raise any dispute or difference of opinion of Haryana but merely seeks implementation of the April 28 resolution of the Technical Committee of the Board. As such, this letter cannot be treated as a reference to the Centre, the court held. Consequently, the April 29 letter of Haryana does not fall within the realm of "material fact", non-disclosure of which is hence inconsequential, it said. Regarding the ground of BBMB being incompetent to decide the issue once the matter was referred to the government of India is concerned, the order said since this court has held the April 29 letter not to be a reference to the government of India, the question of reference being pending with the government of India does not arise and, thus, BBMB was free to act in accordance with law. Referring to its May 6 order, the court mentioned that it disposed of the matter in the backdrop of an emergent situation that had arisen and any delay in resolving the dispute would have caused irreparable damage to millions of residents of different states, including Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi. On May 20, Haryana, BBMB and the Centre had filed their replies to Punjab's plea which sought a review or modification of the high court's May 6 order. Haryana had earlier submitted that the application filed by Punjab is "complete abuse of the process of the court with an ulterior motive to wriggle out from the proceedings of contempt." Punjab and Haryana had been at loggerheads over the distribution of water with the AAP government refusing to share water from Bhakra Dam, saying the neighbouring State has already utilised its share of water.
Hindustan Times
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Water sharing row: HC dismisses Punjab's May 14 plea over release of more water to Haryana
The court had disposed of the petition on May 26 and the detailed order was released on June 7 The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed a petition from the Punjab government seeking modification of the May 6 order that allowed the release of an additional 4,500 cusecs of water to Haryana by Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB). The Punjab government had filed the petition on May 14 arguing that direction was an outcome of concealment of material facts by the BBMB, Haryana and the Centre. 'This court disposed of the matter (on May 6) in the backdrop of emergent situation, which had arisen and any delay in resolving the dispute would have caused irreparable damage to millions of residents of different states, including Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi. With this urgency in mind, this court finally disposed of the matter... (on May 6),' the bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sumeet Goel said, dismissing the plea from Punjab. The petition was disposed of on May 26, and the order was released on June 7 evening. The controversy erupted on April 28 when the Haryana government's demand for additional water from the Bhakra Dam was approved by the BBMB despite opposition from Punjab. The Punjab government refused to accept the decision and deployed police at Nangal dam, 13km downstream from Bhakra, to stop the additional water release. The BBMB was established by the Union power ministry in 1966 under Section 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and regulates water distribution from Bhakra, Nangal, Pong, and Ranjit Sagar dams between Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Rajasthan. The Union home ministry stepped in on May 2 and directed that additional water be released to Haryana. However, the BBMB said that the order could not be complied with as Punjab Police prevented board officials from discharging their duties. The BBMB approached the high court on May 5, seeking the court's intervention and demanding that Punjab Police be withdrawn from BBMB. It was during these proceedings, on May 6, the high court ordered that the May 2 decision of the Union home secretary be implemented, whereby Haryana was to get additional water. However, Punjab did not allow implementation of the May 6 order claiming that 'not a drop could be spared'. HC reiterated its order on May 9 and also sought names of Punjab officials who did not allow the implementation of the HC order. However, it was also not implemented. Finally, on May 14, Punjab filed a plea seeking recall of the May 6 order, which has been dismissed by the HC now. Lawyers said, practically, this decision has 'no impact on the ground' as a new water-sharing cycle has started from May 21. The high court said that on May 29, Haryana wrote a letter to the Centre seeking its intervention in the backdrop of Punjab's opposition. But the letter merely seeks implementation of the May 28 resolution of BBMB allowing more water to Haryana. The court said that this letter can't be treated as a reference, which, as per rule 7 of the BBMB Act, a dissenting state can raise in the event of a dispute. 'This letter does not fall within the realm of 'material fact' (which Punjab was claiming) non-disclosure of which is inconsequential,' the court said. The court also said that Punjab has argued that since the May 29 'reference' was pending with the Centre, BBMB was not competent to decide the issue of water sharing. However, this issue does not arise as the May 29 letter or 'reference' of the Haryana government to the Centre was not made under Rule 7 of the BBMB Act. 'More so, Punjab is not left remediless, since it can always make a reference to Central government in terms of Rule 7,' the court said adding that Punjab was given liberty to approach Centre as per rules. But has not been availed by the state. It further added that with regard to Punjab's argument that the Union home secretary was not competent to take the May 2 decision on the issue and since Haryana's request of May 29 has been held to be 'not in terms of Rule 7,' the very foundation of raising the said ground does not exist,' it added.
Hindustan Times
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
On last day, campus council president calls for renaming Panjab University to also include Haryana
With the term of the Panjab University Campus Students' Council (PUCSC) ending on Thursday, outgoing president Anurag Dalal, hailing from Haryana, has submitted a memorandum to Panjab University (PU) vice-chancellor Renu Vig to change the varsity's name to 'Panjab and Haryana University'. At the same time, PUCSC vice-president Archit Garg, who hails from Punjab, opposed the move. Congress' Rohtak MP Deepender Singh Hooda, who backed Anurag's proposal, said he would place the issue in Parliament in its next session. As per the memorandum, Dalal has pointed out both Punjab and Haryana share historical and cultural, and that it aligns with the already existing nomenclature for the high court. Deepender Hooda said the council president had approached him, and the demand is genuine. 'It will mean a lot for the students of Haryana to see their representation in PU, considering Chandigarh is also the capital of Haryana, not just Punjab,' he said. 'When 48% of the PU students are Haryanvis, it is their right that the name of Haryana be included.' He added that with the support of other Congress MPs, he will bring this issue in Parliament. Meanwhile, PUCSC vice-president Archit Garg said, 'Panjab University's name is iconic. It was the name we chose after the university was relocated from Pakistan. It has its own unique identity. Its name shouldn't be changed.' In 2023, during the varsity's fourth global alumni meet, Vice-President of India Jagdeep Dhankhar had also raked up the issue of PU affiliation to Haryana colleges in nearby districts, like Ambala and Yamunanagar. Three meetings chaired by former Punjab governor Banwarilal Purohit with the chief ministers of Punjab and Haryana earlier in 2023 remained inconclusive. At the time of the Punjab's reorganisation in 1966, PU was declared an 'inter-state body corporate' under Section 72 (1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The affiliation issue has remained a bone of contention, with Haryana offering to bear up to 40% of the total annual expenses of the cash-strapped university in exchange for affiliation to some of the colleges in Ambala, Panchkula and Yamunanagar districts, and Punjab refusing to budge from its stance that the varsity belongs to it alone. Then Haryana CM Manohar Lal Khattar had said in the meetings that under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, the colleges and regional centres of Haryana were affiliated to PU. However, the arrangement was withdrawn by Haryana in 1973. Citing National Education Policy and how colleges are even getting affiliated with international universities, Khattar had said Haryana's colleges again be affiliated with PU.
Time of India
26-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Class in order: Chandigarh turns to Haryana Act to tame unregulated coaching centres
Chandigarh: In a decisive move to address the growing concerns around unregulated private coaching institutes and dummy admissions, the UT education department is set to propose the adoption of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Private Coaching Institutes Act, 2024, for Chandigarh. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now This step comes about an year after the central government issued guidelines on coaching centres, and is now being followed by a push to give them legal teeth. The proposal will be sent to the Government of India for approval under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, allowing the extension of Haryana's legislation to the Union Territory. Officials said the move will enable a formal legal framework for registration, monitoring, and regulation of coaching centres — something the city has long lacked despite growing pressure from educators, parents, and student groups. A key feature of the Haryana legislation is the formation of district-level regulatory authorities tasked with overseeing coaching institutes. These authorities are composed of senior officials from multiple departments, including education, police, municipal administration and district administration. Chandigarh's proposed regulatory authority will follow this multi-departmental model but will be adjusted to fit the Union Territory's administrative structure. The Act grants regulatory authorities civil court-like powers to inspect, inquire and enforce compliance. It defines specific offences and stipulates penalties recoverable as arrears of land revenue, with fines ranging from Rs 25,000 for first violations to Rs 1 lakh for repeat offences. Continued non-compliance may result in cancellation of registration. Further, the Act mandates that coaching institutes employ at least one full-time counsellor to address student mental health and stress-related concerns. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It also requires the establishment of grievance redressal committees with fixed timeframes for complaint resolution. "Though the timings and infrastructure facilities at coaching centres are monitored, a proposed extension of the Haryana Act is being sent to the Centre for consideration and approval for regulation of these centres by way of an appropriate legal framework," said director, school education, Chandigarh, Harsuhinder Pal Singh Brar. "Once approved, a formal framework will be in place towards effective regulation of these centres, which is the need of the hour to ensure safety and wellbeing of children. " While the central guidelines issued in Jan 2024 laid down a broad policy direction — including registration norms, counselling requirements, and anti-exploitation measures — they were advisory in nature. Chandigarh was among the few places where the Centre had designated a nodal officer, with Brar himself appointed to the role. However, enforcement remained limited due to the lack of a statutory framework. Officials maintain that the aim of regulation is not to oppose private coaching but to ensure it remains a support system rather than a substitute for formal schooling. While coaching centres may help students prepare for competitive exams, their unchecked growth and rising influence have raised concerns about student well-being, academic imbalance, and the spread of dummy school practices. By adopting a legal framework, the UT administration hopes to bring clarity, accountability, and safeguards that protect children's education without disrupting their connection to regular schools. BOX- How Haryana Act goes beyond central guidelines Unlike the Centre's advisory guidelines, the Haryana Act is a binding law with enforcement powers. It mandates separate registration for each coaching branch, prohibits misleading terms like "recognised," and bars enrolment of students below 16. It clearly defines penalties, which are recoverable as arrears, and grants civil court powers to authorities. It also makes grievance redressal committees and mental health counsellors compulsory, with fixed 30-day timeline for complaint resolution. These provisions, absent or loosely defined in the guidelines, make the Haryana Act stricter and more enforceable.
Hindustan Times
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Punjab, Haryana water-sharing row: Hearing deferred till May 26
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Friday deferred hearing in the plea from Punjab government, seeking recall of the May 6 order that allowed release of additional water to Haryana from Bhakra Dam. During the hearing on Friday, the Punjab government reiterated its allegations that 'material facts' about the controversy were not brought to the notice of the court by Centre and Haryana, which led to the May 6 order. Punjab's counsel, senior advocate Gurminder Singh concluded his arguments on Friday and hearing was deferred for Monday (May 26) when Centre and Haryana will present their side of arguments. On May 6, the high court directed Punjab government to not interfere with the functioning of the BBMB and abide by the Union home secretary's May 2 decision which asked BBMB to release additional 4,500 cusecs of water to Haryana. The HC order had come on a plea from BBMB, seeking withdrawal of Punjab cops from the dam site, alleging that they were interfering with the working of board. The Punjab government on May 14 moved high court seeking recall of the order arguing that the Union power secretary is the competent authority to deal with disputes around water-sharing under the BBMB Act, and not the Union home secretary. The controversy erupted on April 28 when the Haryana government's demand for additional water from the Bhakra dam was approved by the BBMB despite opposition from Punjab. The Punjab government refused to accept the decision and deployed police at Nangal dam, 13km downstream from Bhakra, to stop the additional water release. The Union home ministry stepped in on May 2 and directed that additional water be released to Haryana. However, the BBMB said that the order could not be complied with as Punjab Police prevented board officials from discharging their duties. The BBMB was established by the Union power ministry in 1966 under Section 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, which regulates water distribution from Bhakra, Nangal, Pong, and Ranjit Sagar dams between Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Rajasthan.
