New Delhi: In a stern message to Punjab, the Supreme Court today said its verdict allowing construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal in Haryana and Punjab has to be implemented.
A bench comprising Justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy also made clear that it would deliberate upon Punjab's contention as to whether the judgement of a five-judge constitution bench, which held its law unconstitutional, was binding.
"The decree passed by this court has to be given effect to," the bench said.
Senior advocate RS Suri, appearing for the Punjab government, said the five-judge bench verdict was not binding as it was given under its advisory jurisdiction and the Punjab law still stands.
The Punjab government told the bench that the verdict which held Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 as unconstitutional did not render the law invalid, as the apex court had only given an opinion on the Presidential Reference.
Mr Suri said Punjab was forced to pass the 2004 Act because its water complaint filed in January 2003 was not acted upon and the Centre never set up a water tribunal to address its grievances.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Haryana government, opposed Punjab's submission and said if one state has to challenge the validity of a law passed by another, then it would pose serious consequences for India's integrity.
A bench comprising Justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy also made clear that it would deliberate upon Punjab's contention as to whether the judgement of a five-judge constitution bench, which held its law unconstitutional, was binding.
"The decree passed by this court has to be given effect to," the bench said.
Senior advocate RS Suri, appearing for the Punjab government, said the five-judge bench verdict was not binding as it was given under its advisory jurisdiction and the Punjab law still stands.
Advertisement
The Punjab government told the bench that the verdict which held Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 as unconstitutional did not render the law invalid, as the apex court had only given an opinion on the Presidential Reference.
Advertisement
Mr Suri said Punjab was forced to pass the 2004 Act because its water complaint filed in January 2003 was not acted upon and the Centre never set up a water tribunal to address its grievances.
Advertisement
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Haryana government, opposed Punjab's submission and said if one state has to challenge the validity of a law passed by another, then it would pose serious consequences for India's integrity.
Advertisement
COMMENTS
Advertisement
"Unless It Defeats Ends Of Justice...": Supreme Court On Denying Bail To Juvenile J&K Poll Dates Going Past Top Court Deadline? Election Body Chief Responds From Early Laws To Arizona: How Abortion Laws Have Evolved In The US Over The Decades Parents Gave Names Of Interns, Doctors To CBI In Kolkata Horror: Sources Who Is Jasveen Sangha, "Ketamine Queen" Charged With Matthew Perry's Death How Extreme Weather Is Leading To Rise In Child Marriages In Pakistan 80 Killed In Paramilitary Attack In Sudan OpenAI Blocks Iranian Group's ChatGPT Accounts For Targeting US Election Blinken Heading To Israel To Press Gaza Truce Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world.