Punjab and Haryana High Court directs Punjab to identify cops who obstructed Bhakra Nangal board officers

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has noted that senior officers including the Chairman of Bhakra Nangal Management Board (BBMB) were obstructed by Punjab Police officials in operating Bhakra Nangal Dam & Lohand Control Room Water Regulation Offices..Earlier, the High Court had on May 6 directed the Punjab government and Punjab Police to refrain from interfering with the functioning of the Bhakra Nangal dam.The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel in an order passed on Friday asked the Punjab government to identify the officers who impeded the working of BBMB officials.However, it clarified that it was yet to ascertain whether the disobedience of Punjab Police personnel was deliberate."This Court thus deems it appropriate to afford an opportunity to the Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab as well as the Director General of Police, State of Punjab to file their respective replies identifying those police personnel of the State of Punjab who had obstructed the Chairman of BBMB and other functionaries of BBMB in performing their day to day functioning in operating and managing the Bhakhra Nangal Dam & Lohand Control Room Water Regulation Offices," the Court said.Considering the sensitive atmosphere prevailing in Punjab due to the ongoing Indo-Pak conflict, the Court said it was refraining from issuing contempt of court notice to the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Chief Secretary."This Court is conscious of the present sensitive atmosphere prevailing in the State of Punjab due to cross border firing between India and Pakistan and therefore, does not want to burden the Chief Secretary as well as the Director General of Police, Government of Punjab, with any contempt notice. This Court accordingly refrains from issuing contempt notice and merely directs them to submit their replies by identifying those police personnel who were involved in restraining the Chairman and functionaries of BBMB in discharging their official duties to operate and manage the Bhakhra Nangal Dam & Lohand Control Room Water Regulation Offices.".The Nangal dam has been a subject of controversy since Punjab Police allegedly prevented the BBMB for releasing additional water for Haryana and some parts of Rajasthan.The Court had earlier directed the Punjab government to comply with the decision taken at a meeting under Chairmanship of Union Home Secretary on May 2 to release additional 4,500 cusecs of water for meeting the emergent needs of Haryana and some parts of Rajasthan..The order was passed on BBMB's petition alleging that Punjab Police had taken over the operational control of the Nangan dam."State of Punjab and any of its functionaries, including police personnel, are restrained from interfering in the day-to-day functioning, operation and regulation of the Bhakra Nangal Dam and Lohand control Room water Regulation offices managed by BBMB," the Court had ordered..On Thursday, BBMB Chairman Manoj Tripathi submitted before the Court that the board's officials were restrained from releasing the water by Punjab Police despite the court order. Tripathi also said he was gheraod by a mob at a guest house.The Court was hearing an application moved by Gram Panchayat, Matana, Fatehabad seeking contempt of court action against the officials of State of Punjab..In response, Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh, representing the Punjab government, submitted that the May 2 meeting had nothing to do with water release. The meeting pertained to law and order situation, he said."How can they say Court has ordered release? If this is not contempt, what is," he asked, while referring to the earlier court order asking the State to comply with the decision taken at the May 2 meeting.He added that only Secretary of Power ministry could have passed such decision..However, the Court questioned the attempts to impede the functioning of BBMB officials including the Chairman and observed that prima facie there appeared to be violation of court's earlier order. "We had specifically said that State of Punjab is directed to abide by the decision of the meeting held on 2.5.2025 held under the Chairmanship of Home Secretary," it said.The Court also said State cannot go behind this order by arguing that the decision at the meeting was not taken by the competent authority under the rules. "There was a judicial order passed. So long as the order stands, you have to comply," it said..Senior Advocate Rajesh Garg, appearing for BBMB, argued that leaving a State thirsty and parched has a cascading effect. "We had assured them (Punjab) that when your paddy season starts, you will get extra water. Even this is not palatable to them. It is a prestige issue. It is a political issue, therefore all these hoodwinking arguments," Garg added.Interjecting, Singh said BBMB had been politically propped up through proxy litigation. "I have never seen a case more smacking of institutional bias," he said.When Singh opposed the issuance of contempt of court notice to Punjab officers and sought time to seek instructions, the Court said,"We are not sending your clients to jail right now. It is only issuing show cause notice. We will give them enough time but we will also say the order needs to be complied with forthwith."When the Court appeared to be disinclined to grant more time, Singh said,"This will affect law and order situation in Punjab... Day and night shelling is going, all these sites [dams] are extremely sensitive. People will gather there. There is going to be an agitation. I cannot stop it because it is sentiment concerning water. I cannot undertake that nothing will happen because these are public sentiments. These are sentiments of general farmers.".The Court then said it can simply adjourn the matter to Monday provided Punjab complies with the earlier order. However, Singh said since the Court also was convinced that the order of May 2 was not passed by a competent authority of Central government, it cannot be asked to comply with such decision.At this, the Court remarked,"Please challenge our order then."In response, Singh said,"Your lordships are prima facie convinced that the order of Home Secretary will be read as order of the Power Secretary? Your lordships are directing a mandamus against law!"Singh then asked that his arguments be recorded before issuance of contempt notice to the officers. In the order released on Saturday, the Court acceded to Singh's request on not issuing contempt of court notice to the officers."It is pertinent to mention here that Shri Gurminder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Punjab in his inimitable persuasive style has attempted to convince us that there was no disobedience on the part of the functionaries of State of Punjab by pointing out that the decision dated 02.05.2025 was taken by the Committee presided over by Union Home Secretary, Government of India, who admittedly is not the competent authority, to deal with the matter under Explanation-II to Rule 7 of 1974 Rules and thus the question of disobedience by any of the functionaries of the State of Punjab, does not arise," the Court observed in the order..The Court reiterated the directions issued by it on May 6 and granted the DGP and Chief Secretary two weeks time to file their respective replies. .Advocates R Kartikeye and R Akanksha represented the Gram Panchayat. Senior Advocate Rajesh Garg with advocates RK Narwal and Neha Matharo represented BBMB.Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh, Additional Advocates General Maninder Singh and Chanchal Kumar Singla with Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok represented the State of Punjab.Advocate General Pravindra Singh Chauhan with Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan represented the State of Haryana.Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain with Senior Panel Counsel Dheeraj Jain appeared for the Union of India..[Read Order]