Fundamentalism and the Sikh Religious Tradition by T.N. Madan

Centre could not constitutionally take control or make an enactment in that regard. Hence
the invalidity of the Reorganisation Act and all the Central decisions about Punjab rivers.
But, in 1980, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi returned to power. She dismissed the Punjab
Ministry, got signed an out-of-court agreement among the Congress Chief Minister of
Punjab, Rajasthan and Haryana, and the case filed in the Supreme court, withdrawn. The
agreement virtually endorsed the award of the Prime Minister given earlier.
There are two other related events, which also suggest that the Centre was very
vigilant that the constitutional issue about Rajasthan and Haryana being non-riparian, and
the Reorganisation Act being ultra vires, of the Constitution, should never be raised
before the Supreme Court. One was the immediate shifting of Chief Justice, S.S.
Sandhanwalia, of Punjab and Haryana High Court, as soon as the Chief Justice had
constituted a full Bench for hearing the water issue and as a result the transfer to Delhi of
private petitions that had questioned the vires of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, thereby
virtually frustrating another attempt to obtain a Judicial decision. The second was an
extra-judicial agreement of 1984 about hydel power, made by the Punjab Governor with
Congress Chief Ministers of Haryana and Rajasthan, eliminating the possibility of the
issue concerning hydel power and the vires of the Reorganisation Act being raised in the
Supreme Court.
All this suggests that the Centre was conscious and feared that the constitutional
verdict of the Supreme Court regarding the Punjab waters, would be against it, and it was
very vigilant to ensure that such an eventuality did not occur.
The Riparian Law, Constitutional Rights And Practices
Under the age old International Law and practice it is accepted that where a river
lies wholly within the territory of one state, it entirely belongs to the state, and no other
state has any rights therein. Thus, according to authorities like Berber, Heffer, Stark,
Samisonian and others disputes relating to river waters can only be between riparian
states and not between a riparian state and a non-riparian state. In short, river and river
waters which flow on land are an essential part of land or territory of a state, which has
absolute rights therein. For, territory constitutes an integral attribute of a state. Here it is
necessary to indicate that the word state for the purpose of this right includes a state or a
province within a country. This riparian principle stands embodied in the Indian
Constitution and vide entry 17 of the list to 7th Schedule of the Constitution, Rivers,
River Waters and Hydel power have exclusively been kept as state subjects. The entry
reads ;
"17- Waters, that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and canals drainage and
embankments, water storage and water power subject to the provisions of Entry 56 of
List I."
Entry 56 of List I of the 7th Schedule reads;
"56 - Regulation and Development of Interstate rivers and river valleys to the
extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union, is
declared-by the Parliament to be expedient in the public interest."
Further, regarding a river the state has full and exclusive legislative and
executive powers under Articles 246(3) and 162 of the Indian Constitution. Entry 56 and
Article 262 mentioned above give authority to Parliament to legislate only in regard to
interstate rivers and not in regard to water of a state river over which the concerned state
alone has full, exclusive and final authority. A river valley is "a tract of land lying