Status Quo Ordered on Shanan Hydropower Project

Context:

The central government has issued orders for maintaining the status quo on the Shanan hydropower project, which has become a subject of contention between Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. The dispute has prompted Punjab to approach the Supreme Court seeking resolution.

Relevance:

GS III: Infrastructure

Dimensions of the Article:

1. Shanan Project and Claims of Different Parties
2. Major Inter-State River Disputes in India

Shanan Project and Claims of Different Parties:

Historical Context:

• The Shanan Project, a 110-MW hydropower project in Jogindernagar, Mandi district, Himachal Pradesh, was leased to Punjab in 1925 during the British era.

Lease Agreement Details:

• Lease formalized between Raja Joginder Bahadur of Mandi and Col BC Batty, Chief Engineer of Punjab, representing the British government.
• Served energy needs of undivided Punjab and Delhi during the British era.

Post-Partition Changes:

• After partition, supply to Lahore ceased, and the transmission line terminated in Amritsar.
• In 1966, the project was transferred to Punjab during state reorganization, as Himachal Pradesh became a Union Territory.

Claims of Himachal Pradesh:

• Ownership and Operational Rights: Asserts ownership and operational rights over the project before the 1925 lease.
• Lease Period Only: Contends that the 1925 lease granted operational, not ownership, rights for a specific period.
• Deterioration Concerns: Raises concerns about the project’s deteriorating condition due to alleged neglect by Punjab.

Claims of Punjab:

• Rightful Owner: Asserts Punjab’s rightful ownership and lawful possession under the central notification of 1967.
• Control through PSPCL: Exercises control over project assets through Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd (PSPCL).
• Legal Action: Files a case in the Supreme Court under Article 131, seeking a “permanent Prohibitory Injunction” to prevent Himachal Pradesh’s interference.

Centre’s Interim Measure:

• Status Quo Order: Central government intervenes, issuing an order to maintain the status quo on the Shanan Project a day before the lease conclusion.
• Legal Basis: Invokes powers under Sections 67 and 96 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, and Section 21 of the General Clause Act, 1887.

Major Inter-State River Disputes in India

Active River Water Dispute Tribunals in India

• Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal II (2004) – Karnataka, Telangana, Andra Pradesh, Maharashtra
• Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal (2018) – Odisha & Chattisgarh
• Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal (2010) – Goa,Karnataka, Maharashtra
• Ravi & Beas Water Tribunal (1986) – Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan
• Vansadhara Water Disputes Tribunal (2010) – Andra Pradesh & Odisha.

Constitutional and legal provisions related to water disputes

• Article 262(1) provides that Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter State river or river valley.
• Article 262(2) empowers Parliament with the power to provide by law that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint.
• Under Article 262, two acts were enacted:
  • River Boards Act 1956: It was enacted with a declaration that centre should take control of regulation and development of Inter-state rivers and river valleys in public interest. However, not a single river board has been constituted so far.
  • The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (IRWD Act) confers a power upon union government to constitute tribunals to resolve such disputes. It also excludes jurisdiction of Supreme Court over such disputes.
• Despite Article 262, the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction to adjudicate water disputes, provided that the parties first go to water tribunal and then if they feel that the order is not satisfactory only then they can approach supreme Court under article 136.
• The article 136 gives discretion to allow leave to appeal against order, decree, judgment passed by any Court or tribunal in India.

Issues with Interstate Water Dispute Tribunals

• Interstate Water Dispute Tribunals are riddled with Protracted proceedings and extreme delays in dispute resolution.
  • For example, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, constituted in 1990, gave its final award in 2007.
• Interstate Water dispute tribunals also have opacity in the institutional framework and guidelines that define these proceedings and ensure compliance.
• There is no time limit for adjudication. In fact, delay happens at the stage of constitution of tribunals as well.
• Though award is final and beyond the jurisdiction of Courts, either States can approach Supreme Court under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) under Article 32 linking issue with the violation of Article 21 (Right to Life). In the event the Tribunal holding against any Party, that Party is quick to seek redressal in the Supreme Court. Only three out of eight Tribunals have given awards accepted by the States.
• The composition of the tribunal is not multidisciplinary and it consists of persons only from the judiciary.
• No provision for an adequate machinery to enforce the award of the Tribunal.
• Lack of uniform standards- which could be applied in resolving such disputes.
• Lack of adequate resources- both physical and human, to objectively assess the facts of the case.
• Lack of retirement or term- mentioned for the chairman of the tribunals.
• The absence of authoritative water data that is acceptable to all parties currently makes it difficult to even set up a baseline for adjudication.
• The shift in tribunals’ approach, from deliberative to adversarial, aids extended litigation and politicisation of water-sharing disputes.
• The growing nexus between water and politics have transformed the disputes into turfs of vote bank politics.

-Source: Indian Express