The Supreme Court has directed Punjab and Haryana to supply 11,973 million units (MU) of electricity to Himachal Pradesh over the next 20 years, putting an end to a decades-old dispute over the distribution of power generated from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas hydroelectric projects.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana ordered the two States to deliver the outstanding electricity at the rate of approximately 598 million units annually during the lean season, spanning October to March.
The ruling brings fresh momentum to a dispute that has remained unresolved despite years of litigation and repeated attempts at settlement.
Capital Cost Liability To Be Adjusted Against Power Dues
The Court has also directed that Himachal Pradesh’s liability towards its 7.19% share of the capital cost of the hydroelectric projects, calculated at ₹420.77 crore, be adjusted against the outstanding electricity dues.
For this adjustment, the power has been valued at ₹3.85 per unit, translating into an equivalent of approximately 1,093 million units.
Himachal Pradesh will, however, be required to pay the charges fixed by the Bhakra Beas Management Board for the year in which each instalment of electricity is supplied.
Dispute Stretches Back To 1996
The proceedings originated in a suit filed by Himachal Pradesh in 1996 under Article 131 of the Constitution. The State had sought its rightful share in the electricity generated from the two major hydroelectric projects.
In 2011, the Supreme Court had ruled that Himachal Pradesh was entitled to 7.19% of the power attributable to the erstwhile composite State of Punjab.
However, enforcing that decision proved far from straightforward. Disagreements continued over the volume of electricity due, the applicable tariff and the financial liabilities arising from the projects’ capital costs.
The Union Government subsequently calculated Himachal Pradesh’s outstanding power entitlement at 13,066 million units for the period between November 1, 1966, and October 2011.
It proposed that the arrears be supplied over 15 years, with the capital-cost liability adjusted against the electricity entitlement.
Punjab’s Objections Rejected As ‘Vague And Superficial’
Punjab challenged the calculation, arguing that the outstanding quantity should be reduced after accounting for additional electricity already supplied to Himachal Pradesh. It also disputed the method used to determine the capital-cost liability.
Haryana, meanwhile, raised objections concerning the extent of its own responsibility.
The Supreme Court declined to accept Punjab’s objections, describing them as “vague and superficial”. The bench observed that the arguments effectively sought to reopen issues already settled through its 2011 judgment.
The Court also expressed concern over the extraordinary length of the dispute, noting that successive efforts by the Union Government to facilitate a settlement had failed to bring the matter to a conclusion.
“It is particularly unfortunate that a dispute which has remained pending for several decades continues to be prolonged, requiring further judicial time and attention,” the bench remarked.
20-Year Timeline To Ease Burden On States
Although the Union Government had proposed a 15-year schedule for supplying the outstanding electricity, the Supreme Court extended the period to 20 years.
The bench said the longer timeline would ease the financial and operational burden on Punjab and Haryana while ensuring that Himachal Pradesh ultimately receives its due share.
The Court made it clear that the directions could not be treated as optional, stressing that a judgment which had remained unenforced for decades must not be rendered meaningless through continued resistance.
“The directions issued by this Court are binding and are required to be acted upon without reservation,” the bench stated.
It further observed that the prolonged pendency of the decree could not justify its failure to be implemented due to the unwillingness or reluctance of the States responsible for complying with it.
With these directions, the Supreme Court disposed of the suit, bringing a long-running inter-State power-sharing dispute to a close.