Punjab vs. BBMB: High Court to Scrutinize Board’s Jurisdiction in Interstate Water Dispute

CHANDIGARH – The Punjab and Haryana High Court is set to delve into the statutory powers of the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) in a contentious legal battle with the Punjab government over the release of additional water to Haryana. The case, now centered on the interpretation of the BBMB Rules of 1974 and the parent Act, has escalated with the Board now alleging that Punjab's refusal to release water earlier contributed to the severity of recent floods.

The dispute stems from a petition filed by the Punjab government challenging the minutes of a BBMB meeting on April 23, 2025. In that meeting, the Board decided to permit the release of up to 8,500 cusecs of additional water to Haryana, citing an acute drinking water crisis and necessary repair work on the Yamuna canal. This decision has ignited a legal firestorm, questioning the very "contours of jurisdiction" available to the interstate water management body.

A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, is hearing the case, titled STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY V/S BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND OTHERS . The court has directed the Punjab government to produce the full text of the 1974 Rules and the Act under which they were framed, signaling a deep dive into the statutory framework governing the BBMB. The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on November 20.

---

The Core Jurisdictional Challenge

The crux of Punjab's argument, presented by Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi, is that the BBMB has overstepped its legal authority. Bedi submitted that the Board's role is strictly confined to the operation and maintenance of dams and the regulation of water supply within the pre-determined shares allocated to partner states under binding agreements, primarily governed by the Punjab Reorganisation Act.

"BBMB has no jurisdiction to release water to any state beyond its share. This is strictly within the statutory framework, and altering it is impermissible,” Bedi argued before the court.

According to Punjab, the BBMB's decision to release additional water to Haryana amounts to a unilateral alteration of these established shares, an action it contends is ultra vires —beyond the Board's legal power. The state government has firmly objected to the notion that the release was contingent on a bilateral agreement, stating unequivocally that "no such agreement ever took place between Punjab and Haryana." In the absence of such an accord, Punjab maintains the BBMB was not justified in releasing the additional water.

BBMB's Defense and the Flood Allegation

In response, the BBMB, represented by Senior Advocate Rajesh Garg, has mounted a robust defense of its actions and introduced a dramatic new dimension to the proceedings. Garg argued that the Board did not alter the overall annual share of any state. Instead, he claimed the BBMB’s role includes regulating month-wise outflows from the Bhakra and Pong reservoirs based on dynamic factors such as inflows, reservoir safety, and seasonal conditions.

“BBMB does not alter state shares. It regulates month-wise outflows from Bhakra and Pong based on inflows, reservoir safety and seasonal conditions. The April note was tentative, subject to bilateral agreement between Punjab and Haryana," Garg stated.

However, the most striking submission came when Garg linked Punjab's refusal to comply with the April directive to the subsequent monsoon flooding. He orally submitted to the bench that the flood situation in Punjab would not have been "so grave" had the state agreed to release the water earlier in the year.

“Had they released the water at that time, the flood situation in the state would not have been that grave," Garg asserted. "They (Punjab) refused to release the water. BBMB had no option but, in the monsoon, to release excess water downstream."

This argument reframes the dispute not just as a matter of jurisdictional overreach but as one of consequential water mismanagement, with the BBMB positioning Punjab's legal challenge as a contributing factor to a natural disaster.

The Question of Alternative Remedy

During the hearing, the High Court bench raised a critical procedural point, drawing attention to Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules, 1974. This rule provides for an alternative remedy, allowing for an appeal to the central government against any decision made by the Board.

"Why don't you represent to the central government?” the court questioned the Punjab AG.

This line of questioning touches upon the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies, a principle that often requires parties to exhaust available administrative or statutory appeal processes before seeking judicial review from a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

AG Bedi countered by arguing that the onus to approach the central government lay with Haryana. He submitted that since Haryana was the party demanding water from Punjab's share after exhausting its own, it should be considered the aggrieved party and thus responsible for filing the representation. The bench, while taking note of the arguments, deferred a conclusive decision, re-emphasizing its need to first examine the rules in their entirety. “Please file the rules and we will see,” the bench stated before adjourning.

Legal Implications and the Path Forward

This case presents a significant test of the BBMB's authority and the legal framework governing interstate water sharing from the Bhakra and Beas projects. The High Court's impending examination of the 1974 Rules and the parent Act will be pivotal. The outcome could set a crucial precedent for how the Board's power to manage seasonal water flows is balanced against the fixed, long-term water shares of partner states.

For legal practitioners in administrative and constitutional law, the court's handling of the "alternative remedy" issue will be of particular interest. A definitive ruling on whether a writ petition is maintainable when a statutory appeal mechanism exists—and on which party is "aggrieved" in such a complex, multi-state dispute—could have wide-ranging implications.

Furthermore, the introduction of the flood-related arguments by the BBMB, while perhaps not central to the core jurisdictional question, adds a layer of public interest and potential liability that complicates the legal and political landscape. As the case moves forward, the High Court's interpretation of the statutory text will not only resolve the immediate dispute over 8,500 cusecs of water but will also redefine the operational boundaries of one of India's most critical water management bodies.