Punjab alleges ‘institutional bullying’ by Centre, Haryana in BBMB case

Alleging deliberate concealment of “material facts” by the Centre and Haryana, Punjab today said the Punjab and Haryana High Court was never informed of a statutory reference made by the BBMB Chairman to the Centre regarding the dispute over the release of additional water.

Appearing before the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, senior advocate Gurminder Singh submitted on Punjab’s behalf that the reference was made to the Centre by the BBMB Chairman at Haryana’s behest on April 29, following a difference of opinion between it and Punjab on the release of additional water.

He said the BBMB, after the making of reference to the Centre, became “functus officio” (having performed his office). Gurminder Singh argued it was then for the Centre to decide the issue in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules of 1974. The rules make it clear that any disagreement involving policy or interstate rights must be referred to the Centre for a binding decision.

He added that the BBMB Chairman, despite making the reference to the Centre, presided over a meeting the next day on April 30 and “chose to conceal and remain silent”.

He further submitted that the HC was also kept in the dark about the actual developments that took place during a subsequent meeting convened by the Ministry of Power under the Home Secretary’s chairmanship. “Nothing about that meeting was circulated to the parties concerned,” he submitted, adding that even the purpose of the meeting was misrepresented. It was not about release of additional water, but related to law and order.

It was further submitted that neither the Union of India nor Haryana informed the court about the fact that a reference had already been made to the Centre. Punjab argued that the concealment of facts was not accidental but deliberate, terming it a case of “institutional bullying”.

Asserting that such suppression had a bearing on the court’s proceedings, Punjab maintained that the Bench may not have passed the order it did, had the facts been placed on record. It was added that the BBMB moved the HC in the garb of an aggrieved seeking redressal of grievances regarding security. But the real intent was to seek “stamp of approval of an illegal act”.

Punjab’s submissions were met with stiff objections by the Centre. Appearing before the Bench, Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain and senior panel counsel Dheeraj Jain refuted allegations of misrepresentation or concealment of facts.

“Punjab is making attempts to pass time and get rid of the HC orders without following the requisite procedure,” he added. The matter is now listed for further hearing tomorrow.

Punjab