"IN RE: THE PUNJAB TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT ACT, 2004" versus .

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 15 · Decided: 10-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016j 11S.C.R.15 
"IN RE: THE PUNJAB TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT ACT, 
A 
2004" 
(Special Reference No. I of 2004) 
NOVEMBER 10, 2016 
[ANIL R. DAVE, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, SHIVA KIRTI 
B 
SINGH, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) 
Conslilution of India: 
Art.143 - Reference unde1; with regard to constitutional 
validity of Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 - Sia/es of 
Pu11jab, Haryana and Rajasthan entered into an agreement dated 
31" Decembe1; 1981 in terms whereof !he said Sia/es agreed 011 
reallocation of Ravi and Beas Waters - Agreement not acted upon 
by the State of Punjab - Suit by Stale of Hwyana before Supreme 
Court, decreed directing the State of Punjab to discharge its 
obligations under the 1981 Agreement - Decree not complied with 
by the State of Punjab - Execution petition by the State of Haryana 
for enforcement of the decree, allowed- Howeve1; the State of Punjab 
enacted the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 terminating 
the 1981 Agreement and also nullifying the aforesaid decrees of 
the Supreme Court against it - Held: The Punjab Termination of 
Agreements Act, 2004 cannot be considered to be legal and valid -
A party to the litigation cannot unilaterally act in a manner to nullify 
the effect of the decree passed by a Court of law - A litigating 
person cannot become judge in its own cause - The 1981 Agreement 
was about sharing of waters of Ravi and Beas rivers and thus could 
not have been unilaterally terminated by one of the parties to the 
Agreement by exercising its legislative power - Such unilateral 
action of the State of Punjab to terminate the I 981 Agreement or 
nullify the decree of the highest Court of the country is comrwy to 
the Constitution of India - Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 -
c 
D 
E 
F 
s.14 - Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 - s. 78 - Pimjab Satluj 
Yamuna Link Canal Land (fransfer of Proprietary Rights) Act, 2016. . G 
Art.143 - Reference under - To be on question of fact or 
question of law - Held: A bare perusal of Art.143 would show that 
the Presidenl of India is authorized to refer to Supreme Court a 
question of law or fact, which in his/her opinion is of such a 
nature and of such a public importance that it is expedient to obtain 
I-I 
15 
.. 
I 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f2016l 11 S.C.R. 
A 
the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it - The Article does not 
restrict the President to obtain opinion only on a pure question of 
law. 
Art.143 - Reference under -
Whether Supreme Court 
obligated or not to render its opinion - Held: It is within the discretion 
B of Supreme Court. suNect to certain parameters, to decide whether 
to refuse to answer a question on a reference. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Answering the referred questions in the negative, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 
2004 cannot be considered to be legal and valid and the State of 
Punjab cannot absolve itself from its duties/liabilities arising out 
of the Agreement dated 31" December, 1981. [Para 31] [34-E-F] 
l.2 It was not disputed that there was a litigation between 
the State of Punjab and the State of llaryana and ultimately a 
decree was made whereby the arrangement with regard to sharing 
of water as per the 1981 agreement was made. There was thus a 
legal sanction to the said arrangement and once a binding decree 
was passed by a Court of law, a party to the litigation cannot 
unilaterally act in a manner to nullify the effect of the decree. 
(Para 32] [34-F-G] 
1.3 In the instant case, instead of a1Jproaching the 
appropriate authority, namely, the Tribunal under the Inter-State 
River Water Disputes Act, 1956 for appropriate relief, the State 
of Punjab exercised its legislative power by enacting the 2004 
Punjab Act so as to nullify the effect of the Decree. It is pertinent 
to note that the water dispute, which the State of Punjab and State 
of Haryana had, had been referred to the Tribunal as per the 
provisions of Section 14 of the 1956 Act. After considering the 
relevant provisions, the Tribunal had taken a judicial decision 
and the said decision is also sought to be dist.urbed by virtue of 
enactment of the 2004 Punjab Act. (Paras 33, 391 (34-G-H; 38-A-
B J 
1.4 A litigating person cannot become judge in its own cause. 
The 1981 Agreement was about sharing of waters of Ravi and 
Beas rivers. The said Agreement could not have been unilaterally 
terminated by one of the parties to the Agreement by exercising 
IN RE: THE PUNJAB TERM

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.