:dateline:The presidential reference hearing on the contentious SYL-Canal issue took place on�April 18. �During the hearing, the Kejriwal-led Delhi government reversed their position, seeking permission from the Supreme Court to take back�their�earlier affidavit so that they�could submit a�new one.�The�new legal counsel of the Delhi government told the court that the earlier counsel was not officially authorized to submit the affidavit.�
The�affidavit submitted to the court had stated that the Punjab government had set a�bad precedent by passing �the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act of 2004 in the assembly, which had annulled all of Punjab�s pacts with neighboring states regarding the sharing of river water.�Appearing as counsel on behalf of Punjab during the hearing, Sri Harish Salve justified the bill by contending that the�delayed decision by the tribunal appointed in 2003 to sort out the issue had compelled the State assembly to make�a decision on its own.
Salve�argued that the Haryana government should focus on the Shardha-Yamuna Link Canal, another canal which would allow Haryana to receive�additional water, since the dwindling water levels in the�Satluj and Ravi would not�allow Punjab to share its water.�Salve also claimed�that the original agreement to share water�signed in 1981 was not legal, because it violated the�Punjab Reorganization Act of 1966.�He also told the court that construction of any canal in the territory of Punjab could not be�done against its wishes. He added that Punjab holds full ownership over its river waters as per internationally accepted law.
The constitution bench clarified that the Delhi government couldn�t be given permission to change its affidavit over the issue. However, it could submit a�new affidavit in the Court. The Court would�decide whether it could be given permission to change the affidavit depending on the reasons submitted.
For this hearing, the President of India had asked the Supreme Court for its suggestion on this issue. “As most cases related to SYL-Canal issue are already pending in the Supreme Court, this bench can�t make�any suggestion on the issue at the current stage,� Salve argued. �The next hearing on the case has been deferred to April 25. �
