1. Are we running the country? No, we are not and nor do we intend to: Supreme Court while dismissing Satluj-Yamuna Canal PIL

Are we running the country? No, we are not and nor do we intend to: Supreme Court while dismissing Satluj-Yamuna Canal PIL

“Are we running the country? No…we are not and nor do we intend to,” observed the bench, as soon as the lawyer for the petitioner began his argument

By: | Updated: April 8, 2017 11:53 AM
Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha, Satluj-Yamuna, Punjab “Are we running the country? No…we are not and nor do we intend to,” observed the bench, as soon as the lawyer for the petitioner began his argument

A bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha said that they are not running the country nor they intend to do so. In a burst of anger, they went on saying that the issues that are to be decided by an executive should not come to the judiciary.

“Are we running the country? No…we are not and nor do we intend to,” observed the bench, as soon as the lawyer for the petitioner began his argument, reported by The Indian Express.

Advocate Abhishek Nanda, who was arguing for the petition filed Haryana-based social activist Jeetendra Nath urged the bench to take up the issue of SYL (Satluj-Yamuna Link) canal and sort the tussle between Haryana and Punjab by asking the central and the state governments of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana for construction of the SYL canal directly from Himachal Pradesh to Haryana, instead of passing through Punjab.

According to the petition, the project was stuck in between because of Punjab’s resistance.According to Nath, this stalemate resulted in a breach of fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality before law). “Such arbitrary and unreasonable actions of the Government of Punjab are violative of fundamental rights of the people of Haryana as enumerated under Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, such whimsical and irrational actions of the Government of Punjab have resulted in depriving the people of Haryana due share of water as guaranteed and enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India,” said the plea, as reported by The Indian Express.

Listening to the statements of Nath and Nanda, the bench was convinced that the case didn’t fall in the ambit of jurisdiction and the PIL was dismissed.

  1. No Comments.

Go to Top