{"id":42933,"date":"2025-05-08T19:14:42","date_gmt":"2025-05-08T13:44:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/?p=42933"},"modified":"2026-06-22T16:47:02","modified_gmt":"2026-06-22T11:17:02","slug":"sutlej-yamuna-link-syl-canal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/current-affairs\/08-05-2025\/sutlej-yamuna-link-syl-canal","title":{"rendered":"SYL Full Form is Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong>Syllabus: GS2\/Governance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>SYL stands for <strong>Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal. <\/strong>It is a<strong> 214 km-long<\/strong> waterway in which 122 km was to be constructed in Punjab and 92 km in Haryana to link the Satluj and Yamuna rivers. It&#8217;s an old water-sharing dispute between <strong>Punjab and Haryana.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Supreme Court recently termed <strong>Punjab\u2019s de-notification of land acquired<\/strong> for the <strong>construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal<\/strong> an act of \u201chigh-handedness\u201d.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>About<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The court reminded Punjab of its<strong> 2017 order<\/strong> to<strong> maintain status quo on canal-related land and property.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>The SYL canal<\/strong> was conceptualised for the effective allocation of <strong>water from the Ravi and Beas rivers.&nbsp;<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The project envisaged a<strong> 214-km canal,<\/strong> of which 122 km was to be constructed in Punjab and 92 km in Haryana.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Background of the Dispute<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>In 1981<\/strong>, an agreement was reached between <strong>Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan <\/strong>for sharing the Ravi-Beas water.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Haryana filed a case for the completion of the canal in 1996.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Supreme Court in 2002 ruled in favour of Haryana and directed Punjab to complete its share.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In 2004, Punjab passed the Termination Agreement Act and stopped the construction unilaterally.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down the 2004 Act of Punjab and declared it unconstitutional.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><strong>Recent Court Guidelines<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Supreme Court appointed the Union Home Secretary, the Chief Secretary of Punjab, and the DGP of Punjab for overseeing land-related issues.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It also ruled Punjab, Haryana and the Central government worked on mutually agreeable solutions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If this matter remains unresolved then again listed on 13th August.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><strong><strong>Dispute Resolution Mechanism in India for Inter-State Water Sharing<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Provisions in the Constitution: <\/strong>As mentioned in Article 262 of the Indian Constitution, Parliament has the power to legislate for adjudication of inter state river water disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And also restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court in such matters if a law is made under this provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to Article 262 of the Indian Constitution, it empowers the parliament to enact the <strong>River Board Act 1956<\/strong>, which empowered the Central Government to establish boards for Interstate Rivers and river valleys in consultation with State Governments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, no board has been created to date.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956:<\/strong> If the State Government(s) approach the Central Government for the constitution of the Tribunal, the Centre may form a Tribunal after trying to resolve the dispute through consultations.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Supreme Court shall not question the Award or formula given by the Tribunal but it can question the working of the Tribunal.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><\/ul>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-full is-resized\"><img data-dominant-color=\"efefee\" data-has-transparency=\"false\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"610\" height=\"467\" src=\"https:\/\/wp-images.nextias.com\/cdn-cgi\/image\/format=auto\/ca\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Inter-State-Water-Dispute-Act-1956.webp\" alt=\"SYL \" class=\"not-transparent wp-image-42934\" style=\"--dominant-color: #efefee; width:428px;height:auto\" srcset=\"https:\/\/wp-images.nextias.com\/cdn-cgi\/image\/format=auto\/ca\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Inter-State-Water-Dispute-Act-1956.webp 610w, https:\/\/wp-images.nextias.com\/cdn-cgi\/image\/format=auto\/ca\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Inter-State-Water-Dispute-Act-1956-300x230.webp 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 610px) 100vw, 610px\" \/><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<p><strong><strong>The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 was amended in 2002, to include the major recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission.<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Tribunal has to be constituted<strong> within a year of getting the request.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The tribunal<strong> must give the award within the maximum period of 5 years.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Tribunal award is <strong>not immediately implemented<\/strong> and the concerned parties <strong>may seek clarification within 3 months<\/strong> of the award.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Tribunal Awards will have the <strong>same force as the order or decree of the Supreme Court.<\/strong> The award is final and beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Recent and Proposed Reforms<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019<\/strong> (Pending in Parliament):\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Proposes permanent tribunal with time-bound adjudication.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Creates a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) for pre-tribunal negotiation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The tribunal must Include <strong>technical experts <\/strong>(engineers, hydrologists, ecologists) as permanent members.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>An <strong>independent water data authority<\/strong> can be established under the Central Water Commission (CWC).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): <\/strong>Negotiations and Mediation by neutral parties or the Centre can resolve disputes effectively.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Source: <\/strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/supreme-court-pulls-up-punjab-for-high-handedness-in-denotifying-land-meant-for-syl-canal\/article69544221.ece\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>TH<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<h3><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n<li class=\"ms-5\">The Supreme Court recently termed Punjab\u2019s de-notification of land acquired for the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal an act of \u201chigh-handedness\u201d.<\/li>\n<p><\/p>\n<h3><strong>About<\/strong><\/h3>\n<li class=\"ms-5\">The court reminded Punjab of its 2017 order to maintain status quo on canal-related land and property.<\/li>\n<li class=\"ms-5\">The SYL canal was conceptualised for the effective allocation of water from the Ravi and Beas rivers.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li class=\"ms-5\">The project envisaged a 214-km canal, of which 122 km was to be constructed in Punjab and 92 km in Haryana.<\/li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/current-affairs\/08-05-2025\/sutlej-yamuna-link-syl-canal\" class=\"btn btn-primary btn-sm float-end\">Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42933","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-affairs"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42933","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42933"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42933\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":77542,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42933\/revisions\/77542"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}