Punjab vs. Haryana Water Dispute: Legal, Political, and Hydrological Dimensions
Why This Is in News?
On May 2, 2025, escalating tensions between Punjab and Haryana over water-sharing from the Bhakra-Nangal project reached a boiling point. Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann rejected the Bhakra Beas Management Board’s (BBMB) decision to release an additional 4500 cusecs of water to Haryana. He was backed by all major political parties in Punjab, including the BJP, Congress, AAP, and Akali Dal.
This clash has raised legal and constitutional questions regarding:
- Inter-state water disputes,
- Equitable sharing under BBMB allocations,
- Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and BBMB,
- Emergency resource management under Article 262 and the Interstate River Water Disputes Act.
This makes it a significant issue under CLAT Current Affairs 2026 and Indian Polity for law aspirants.
Article Structure
- Introduction
- Background of the Water-Sharing Dispute
- What Triggered the Current Stand-Off?
- BBMB and Its Role in Water Allocation
- Punjab’s Legal and Political Objection
- Haryana’s Demands and Justifications
- The Water Deficiency and Himalayan Snowfall
- Legal Mechanisms: What the Constitution Provides
- Key Legal and Technical Terms
- CLAT-Oriented Takeaways
- Conclusion
Introduction
Water-sharing between Punjab and Haryana has long been a politically sensitive and hydrologically complex issue. The Bhakra-Nangal system is a lifeline for both states, and any dispute over allocations tends to polarize regional politics.
Background of the Dispute
- BBMB (Bhakra Beas Management Board) was established in 1966 post-Punjab Reorganisation under Section 79 of the Act.
- It manages the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas-Sutlej link projects, including Pong and Pandoh dams.
- Water is annually allocated based on MAF (Million Acre Feet):
- Punjab: 5.512 MAF
- Haryana: 3.33 MAF
- Rajasthan: 3.318 MAF
What Triggered the Crisis?
- On April 23, 2025, Haryana demanded 8,500 cusecs, i.e., 4,500 cusecs more than usual from the Bhakra-Nangal project.
- Punjab’s CM refused, citing acute water shortage and stating “Punjab does not have a single drop to spare.”
- A BBMB meeting approved the request without Punjab’s consent—sparking a political uproar.
Role of the BBMB
- BBMB is tasked with equitable water distribution among Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, and Delhi.
- In the latest meeting, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Delhi voted in favour of the extra allocation; Himachal abstained.
- Punjab accused the Board of bypassing its statutory rights.
Punjab’s Objection
- Punjab refused to open additional sluice gates at the Nangal dam, effectively blocking extra flow to Haryana.
- Threatened to approach the Supreme Court, challenging the legality of the BBMB’s “unilateral” allocation.
- Stated that water levels are critically low due to reduced Himalayan snowfall and that current supplies are below last year’s levels by 12 feet.
Haryana’s Stand
- CM Nayab Singh Saini accused Punjab of “dirty politics.”
- Asserted that Haryana hasn’t received its due share.
- The state needs water for drinking, irrigation, and agriculture, particularly in Hisar, Sirsa, and Fatehabad.
- Haryana is expected to file a petition in the Supreme Court demanding its “sacrosanct” share.
Deficiency and Himalayan Snowfall
- Punjab reported that:
- Haryana has already drawn 3.110 MAF, exceeding 10.4% of its annual share.
- The Bhakra dam’s water level is down by 12 feet.
- Pong and Ranjit Sagar dams are also 15–30 feet below normal levels due to a dry winter.
Constitutional and Legal Provisions
- Article 262 of the Indian Constitution:
- Parliament may legislate to adjudicate inter-state water disputes.
- Prohibits courts from entertaining disputes once a tribunal is set up.
- Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956:
- Empowers Centre to set up tribunals.
- However, the BBMB works under a different framework due to post-reorganisation legislative setup.
- Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Disaster Management Act, 2005:
- May be invoked in case of acute water shortage affecting health and livelihoods.
Key Legal and Technical Terms
Term | Explanation |
BBMB | Bhakra Beas Management Board – allocates and manages water distribution from Bhakra and Beas projects |
Cusecs | Cubic feet per second – a unit measuring water discharge |
MAF | Million Acre Feet – volume of water needed to cover one million acres with one foot of water |
Sluice Gate | Hydraulic structure that controls water flow |
Article 262 | Empowers Parliament to legislate for inter-state water disputes and restricts court jurisdiction |
Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 | Divided Punjab into Punjab and Haryana and laid water-sharing frameworks |
CLAT-Oriented Takeaways
- Understand Article 262 & IRWD Act
- Water disputes cannot go to courts if a tribunal is established.
- Analyze Federal vs. State Rights
- What happens when BBMB decisions clash with a state’s consent?
- Apply Environmental Law
- Use climate impact (Himalayan snowfall, droughts) to examine legal responses.
- Inter-state Disputes and Centre’s Role
- When and how can the Centre intervene in water sharing?
- Mock Questions for CLAT Practice:
- What is the function of the BBMB?
- How are cusecs and MAF related?
- Which constitutional article governs inter-state water disputes?
Conclusion
This water-sharing conflict between Punjab and Haryana illustrates the growing tension between natural resource scarcity, political rivalry, and legal mandates. As both states head toward litigation and constitutional escalation, the Centre may have to step in for long-term resolution—perhaps through a permanent river tribunal or a renegotiation of BBMB roles.
For CLAT 2026 aspirants, this is a perfect case study to understand the real-life application of constitutional provisions, federalism, resource equity, and inter-state diplomacy.
