Indian Supreme Court revives the hair-brained ‘national river-linking project’ in violation of the Indian constitution, to target occupied Indian Punjab’s river water along with the river waters of Kerala, Nepal Bhutan and Bangladesh
Supreme Court’s above illegal anti-Sikh action would mean reopening the defunct SYL canal & allowing non-riparian Haryana to tap the Bhakra main line for its illegally built Hansi-Butana canal
Washington D.C. Wednesday February 29, 2012: It is obvious to any constitutionalist observer that, the Indian Supreme Court Chief Justice S. H. Kapadia, when he ordered the Union government, last Monday, (February 27, 2012) to start work on the hair-brained national river-linking project (proposed a decade ago by the then ‘day-dreaming’ BJP Vajpai government) and, also appointed a committee, to supervise and ensure that work started on the half-baked project quickly, was in fact legally stepping out of line. Any legal/ constitutional expert, or even a layman, who believed in the sanctity of preserving the Constitution-mandated authority of the executive, the power of the legislature and the independence of the judiciary, could have told Chief Justice S. H. Kapadia that, Monday’s (27 February, 2012) Supreme Court judgment/ order (Chief Justice S. H. Kapadia, Justice A. K. Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar) on the national River-linking project was illegal.
The Supreme Court Chief Justice should have known that, under the Indian constitution, whether or not to adopt and implement a particular program or project is entirely the choice of the executive, irrespective of the party or an alliance of parties in power. The Government of the day is fully empowered and justified in either accepting or rejecting programs or projects, including those conceived by the previous regime. If there are any questions to be raised about the executive’s decision, then that prerogative goes to the legislaturewhere the executive can be asked to explain what prompted it to act in a particular manner. India’s judiciary has no role what-so-ever in either decision-making or questioning the decision-makers, unless a decision is in violation of the law of the land or negates provisions of the Indian Constitution. Period.
A thought comes to mind that, perhaps, Chief Justice Kapadia, who should know all about the Indian constitution, when he was writing Monday’s Supreme Court judgment did not realize that his common sense had fled because he was probably itching to take a cue from the proactive legal actions of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry of the Pakistani Supreme Court. Pakistan’s Chief Justice Chaudhry has earned a unique position in South Asia as he is a fearless, God-fearing, humble, honest, iron-willed popular judge, who was reinstated to his Chief Justice job by a historical, peaceful mass movement of the Pakistani people – something unprecedented in the judicial history of any country on this planet. Justice S. H. Kapadia, before he got carried away, last Monday, should have had the sense to realize that he was no Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, as the Indian masses do not know him and had nothing to do with his appointment as Chief Justice of India, even if he has arranged, as is rumored, for his photographs to be published/circulated (something not done) by prestigious Indian publications like the HINDU newspaper. among other publications and also other print and electronic, outlets in the media: (> http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2937800.ece?homepage=true <)
Another thought that comes to mind is that, another anti-Punjab, anti-Sikh, intrigue, to steal Punjab’s river water, is in the offing with a ‘wink and nod’ from India’s Brahmin caste-dominated judiciary. Last Monday’s (February 27, 2012) timing of the hearing of this petition, filed in public interest, in the Punjab/Haryana High Court, seemed to be synchronized with the Supreme Court order of Monday 27 February, 2012. The question arises, as to how come both these cases were heard on the same day – Monday, 27 February, 2012 after lying dormant for quite some time? A bench of the Indian Supreme Court (Chief Justice S. H. Kapadia, Justice A. K. Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar) passed an illegal judgment/order (mentioned in paragraph one above) which will effect the status of not only the abandoned SYL (Sutlej-Jumna link) canal but also the illegal Hansi-Butana canal, arbitrarily built by the State of Haryana with the intention of siphoning water from the Bhakra mainline canal? A report in the Chandigarh-based TRIBUNE newspaper, headlined, “Sharing of Water - Haryana accuses Punjab of non- cooperation, (> http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120228/ haryana.htm#3 <) published on Monday, 27 February, 2012, lets the ‘cat out of the bag’. This Tribune Chandigarh-datelined report, by Tribune correspondent Saurabh Malik, states that, the relationship between Punjab and Haryana over the issue of sharing water today took another twist, with Haryana— mentioing the Hansi-Butana case - accusing Punjab of not cooperating with it in the matter. The fresh criticism came on Monday, 27 February, 2012, “as a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court took up a petition filed in public interest on commissioning new phases of the Kajauli water works. The PIL has been filed by Mohali’s former municipal counselor, Kuljit Singh Bedi. Mr. Bedi is seeking directions to expedite the completion of phases five and six of the Kajauli water works, which would bring an additional 40 million gallons of water every day to the Tri-city areas. In its affidavit placed before the Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Mahesh Grover, Harmail Singh, Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, Haryana, minced no words to say: “Punjab did not permit Haryana to siphon even a small quantity of 500 cusecs of water from the Bhakra mainline for carriage through the Hansi-Butana multipurpose link channel to meet the drinking water
requirements of residents of southern Haryana”. The Punjab/ Haryana High Court has adjourned the hearing in the case to April 17, 2012.
It is obvious to every observer of the South Asian scene that the hair-brained national river linking scheme is still-born and it cannot take off without the permission and collaboration of China (the mighty Brahmaputra river comes from Tibet, China) and consent and collaboration of Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh. As the Chandigarh-based TRIBUNE pointed out yesterday (28 February, 2012) in a report from its legal correspondent, R Sedhuraman, that there are major problems with the proposed National River Linking scheme, in Indian occupied Punjab. He listed the first problem, from (> http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120228/ main1.htm <) the Hindu prospective, as the Sutlej Yamuna Link canal (SYL) which was to link both Sutlej and Yamuna through a 214-km long canal. The problem is that, Haryana has completed construction of its portion of this canal. Construction stopped on the Punjab side since militancy days. The second problem according to him is that, Punjab Govt in 2004 passed the ‘Termination of Agreements Act’ that ended all earlier water sharing agreements with neighboring states. Under the heading of MAJOR RIVER ROWS the Hindu gentleman lists the following problems:- Krishna-Godavari dispute: Involves Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. The Cauvery row: relates to re-sharing of waters between Karnataka &Tamil Nadu while Ravi-Beas dispute: involves Punjab and Haryana; which dispute started with the reorganization of Punjab in 1966.
This Tribune correspondent, a Hindu, failed to mention that an independent buffer Sikh state of Khalistan, (stretching from the Jumna river on the East to the Pakistan border on the West) after it has raised its national flag can and will earn hundreds of million of dollars annually from sale of surplus water, to water-short riparian, Pakistan and water short non-riparian Indian states of Haryana and Rajasthan. Therefore, Sikh Punjab even in its present temporary Indian-occupied-status, has no interest in any Indian sponsored national river-linking scheme which would deprive it of its river waters.