The Supreme Court today adjourned the execution proceedings relating to the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal dispute between the states of Haryana and Punjab, granting the parties further time to explore an amicable resolution under the facilitation of the Union of India.

The Special Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing the matter.

The hearing arose in the execution of the Court’s long-standing decree directing completion of the SYL Canal. Senior counsel appearing for Haryana submitted that pursuant to the Court’s order dated 6 May, high-level meetings had been held between the Chief Ministers of both States and the Union Minister for Jal Shakti. However, no final resolution had yet fructified. It was pointed out that while the Haryana portion of the canal, measuring approximately 92 km, had been completed long ago, construction of the Punjab segment, about 120 km in length, remained incomplete despite repeated directions of the Court since the early 2000s.

Haryana further submitted that the decree itself provides a default mechanism whereby, in the event Punjab fails to complete construction within the stipulated timeline, the obligation shifts to the Union of India. It was argued that, given the passage of more than two decades, it was now incumbent upon the Union to place a concrete, time-bound action plan before the Court.

Appearing for Punjab, senior counsel drew the Court’s attention to subsequent developments, including the termination of inter-State water agreements by a State enactment, and repeated judicial observations noting the practical difficulties in executing the decree given ground realities, border sensitivities, and public sentiment attached to land and water in Punjab. It was submitted that the Court itself had, since 2016, encouraged attempts at an amicable solution.

It was informed to the Court that multiple meetings had been held and discussions had progressed positively towards a possible alternative mechanism to satisfy the decree, even if not by strict execution. Reference was made to correspondence dated 13 November 2025 and subsequent communications requesting both States to engage bilaterally and evolve a mutually acceptable framework, which could then be placed before the Union for final resolution.

Taking note of the submissions and the affidavit filed by the Union of India, the Court observed that while it was conscious that the matter pertained to the execution of a decree, it was inclined to grant one more opportunity for settlement, in line with its earlier directions. The Bench clarified that this indulgence should not be construed as indefinite and that if no resolution emerged, the Court would proceed to decide the matter.

Accordingly, the Court adjourned the matter for hearing to April 8, 2026, observing that it expected the parties to place the outcome of their discussions on record by then. The Court made it clear that if the dispute remained unresolved, the matter would be taken up and decided on the next date.

Appearances

Aditya Sharma (P-1)

Shibu Devasia Olickal, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, N. Visakamurthy (R-2)

Arvind Kumar Sharma (R-3)

Kuldip Singh (Impleaded)

Nidhi Jaswal (Intervenor)