Punjab vs Haryana: Bhakra Dam Dispute and the High Court’s Message on Federal Integrity

Paromita Das
GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 9th May: In the vast, complicated web of Bharatiya federalism, water disputes have often served as stark reminders of how inter-state relations are both fragile and fiercely territorial. On May 7, 2025, this fragility was once again laid bare when the Punjab and Haryana High Court intervened decisively in a mounting standoff between the two states. In a ruling that has far-reaching legal and political consequences, the court directed the Punjab Government to release 8,500 cusecs of water from the Bhakra Nangal Dam to Haryana, as per the statutory mandate of the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB).

This was not a routine administrative decision. The court’s ruling came amid serious allegations that Punjab Police had forcefully taken over dam operations, allegedly disrupting the BBMB’s authority and creating a dangerous precedent that pits state law enforcement against a central regulatory body. What the High Court did, therefore, was not just restore administrative order but also reassert the supremacy of central law and federal structures enshrined in the Bharatiya Constitution.

At the heart of this conflict is the Bhakra Nangal Dam, one of Bharat’s most critical water and power resources, managed by BBMB, which operates under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The dam serves multiple states—Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Delhi. The BBMB’s mandate is to ensure equitable and timely water release to all stakeholders, based on existing allocations and real-time assessments of need. Yet, the very state in which the dam physically resides—Punjab—stood accused of not only refusing to follow BBMB’s directions but actively interfering in its operations through the deployment of state police.

The High Court, in an unequivocal order, restrained the Punjab Government and its functionaries, including the police, from interfering with BBMB’s day-to-day activities. In doing so, the court affirmed what many legal experts and constitutional scholars have long stressed: the inviolability of central institutions, particularly those created by acts of Parliament to oversee inter-state coordination. The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, was not merely a legal directive—it was a message about governance and the federal compact.

The arguments presented in court further expose the depth of the confrontation. BBMB’s legal counsel accused the Punjab Government, led by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), of violating federal norms and attempting to subvert a central authority by using force and political narrative. The counsel described this as not only unconstitutional but a dangerous precedent that could ignite a broader crisis in centre-state relations. If individual states can flout central directives on essential services like water, what then is the guarantee of uniformity and justice in a federal republic?

Punjab’s defense centered around the assertion that Haryana had already consumed its water quota and was attempting to secure more water under the guise of drinking water needs when, they argued, the real purpose was agricultural irrigation. This reasoning was strongly denied by Haryana, which emphasized the acute pre-monsoon water stress faced by its districts and the urgent need for water to meet both domestic and agricultural demands. With temperatures soaring and rainfall deficits mounting, Haryana’s claim was not merely political—it was humanitarian.

It’s essential to understand that water is not just a natural resource in Bharat; it is a political lifeline, deeply intertwined with state pride, agrarian economy, and electoral calculus. Punjab, already dealing with groundwater depletion and farmer unrest, is reluctant to part with what it sees as its lifeblood. Haryana, landlocked and increasingly vulnerable to climatic variability, sees equitable water distribution not just as a right, but as a necessity for survival. This dispute is not new, but what escalates it into a constitutional flashpoint is the blatant disregard for federal law and the use of state force to challenge central authority.

In my opinion, the High Court’s intervention could not have come at a more crucial time. With Bharat witnessing increasing inter-state friction over resources—from the Cauvery water dispute in the south to the Krishna-Godavari conflict—it is imperative that the rule of law and federal governance are upheld. The Bhakra Dam issue is not merely about water. It is a test case for how Bharat negotiates its federal contradictions in times of scarcity and political contestation.

The court’s decision may bring temporary relief to Haryana, but the larger issue remains unresolved. Water-sharing agreements must now be revisited with a scientific, transparent, and collaborative framework. Bharat cannot afford to let essential resources become instruments of political theatre or battlegrounds of regional ego. Central bodies like BBMB must be empowered further, not undermined by state-level interference. More importantly, states must recognize that federalism is not a competition—it is a contract.

A Test of Federalism, A Reminder of Responsibility

The May 7 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is more than a legal milestone—it is a cautionary tale and a constitutional assertion. It reminds us that in a federal democracy, cooperation is not optional, it is foundational. States may have their interests, but when those interests clash with central statutes and the collective well-being of others, rule of law must prevail.

As the waters of the Bhakra Nangal Dam begin to flow again towards Haryana, they carry with them a deeper current—one of judicial intervention to restore federal order, and a message that no state is above the law. The road ahead will require dialogue, reforms, and political maturity. But for now, the High Court has spoken. And in doing so, it has rebalanced not just a reservoir, but a republic.