Case at a Glance
Himachal Pradesh sued in 1996 under Article 131 for its share of power from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas hydel projects, built largely on land of the former Bilaspur State and Kangra district. A 2011 decree fixed its share at 7.19% of composite Punjab’s share, but the arrears from 1966 to 2011 were never settled despite repeated attempts at settlement through the Attorney General. On 6 November 2026 the Supreme Court fixed the arrears at 13,066 million units (MU), set off Himachal’s Rs. 420.77 crore share of capital cost against them, and directed Punjab and Haryana to supply the balance of about 11,973 MU in kind over 20 lean seasons. No money is to change hands between the States.
The Bhakra-Nangal and Beas projects submerged about 27,869 acres and over 65,050 acres respectively, much of it in areas that are now in Himachal Pradesh. After the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, Section 78 required the rights and liabilities of the projects to be apportioned by agreement or, failing that, by the Central Government. Power was in fact shared on an ad hoc basis, with Himachal getting about 2.5% of Bhakra-Nangal and 15 MW from Beas Unit I. Himachal claimed 7.19% from 1969; the Centre rejected the claim in 1994 and the State filed an original suit in 1996, also claiming 12% free power and Rs. 2,199.77 crore in compensation.
By its decree of 27 September 2011, the Supreme Court held the suit maintainable and not time-barred, rejected the 12% free-power claim, and fixed Himachal’s entitlement at 7.19% (6.095% of Bhakra-Nangal, 5.752% of Beas Unit I and 2.984% of Beas Unit II), leaving the Union to work out the arrears. In 2013 the Union computed them at 13,066 MU. Punjab and Haryana disputed the figure, the rate and the mode of payment, and settlement attempts in 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2024–25 failed. The matter came back for final directions in 2026.
The Key Question Before the Court
How should the 2011 decree be executed: what are Himachal Pradesh’s energy arrears, how is its share of the capital cost to be adjusted, and should the dues be paid in cash or in kind, and over how long?
An Execution Exercise, Not a Retrial
The Court made clear that it was not reopening the 2011 decree. The exercise, it said, “is, rather, in the nature of execution proceedings”, needed because of differences over the Union’s computation. It rejected Punjab’s objections, including the plea that the 1.2 lakh units per day already supplied should be deducted, as an attempt to re-argue settled points, noting that this supply had already been taken into account. It also rejected Punjab’s attempt to value the old arrears at the present operation-and-maintenance rate, since the arrears belong to an earlier period.
On the period of supply, Punjab asked for 30 years instead of the 15 proposed by the Attorney General, while Haryana accepted 15. The Court noted that “No other reason has been advanced for departing from the suggested period”, but, “with a view to easing the burden”, increased the period “from 15 years to 20 years.” It said the remaining issues had to be “brought to a final quietus” and warned all parties that “the directions issued by this Court are binding and are required to be acted upon without reservation.” A decree pending for decades, it added, cannot be rendered fruitless by the “unwillingness or recalcitrance of a Judgment Debtor.”
What the Court Actually Held
- Himachal Pradesh’s energy arrears, as computed by the Union of India, are taken at 13,066 MU, to be supplied by Punjab and Haryana in the ratio 58:42 for Bhakra-Nangal and 60:40 for Beas, during lean seasons (October to March).
- Himachal’s 7.19% share of capital cost, representing loan servicing borne by Punjab and Haryana since 1966–67, is fixed at Rs. 420.77 crore (Rs. 249.23 crore to Punjab and Rs. 171.55 crore to Haryana).
- That liability is adjusted against the arrears at Rs. 3.85 per unit (about 1,093 MU), and the balance of about 11,973 MU is to be supplied at roughly 598 MU per year over 20 lean seasons; Himachal pays the BBMB charges for each year’s tranche.
- The settlement is to be implemented on a cashless basis, with no direct financial transaction between the States, and the suit was disposed of in these terms.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It brings to an end a dispute over power from two of India’s oldest multipurpose projects that has been in court since 1996.
- It shows how the Supreme Court executes its own decree in an Article 131 suit between States, by settling arrears in kind rather than in cash.
- The Court’s warning that its directions bind States “without reservation” is a reminder that governments, too, are judgment debtors.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For States and Public Bodies
- Once a decree is final, disputes over computation are treated as execution issues; old arguments cannot be re-run under that label.
- A set-off of capital liability against energy dues can avoid cash transfers between budgets.
For Counsel
- In execution of a decree, the court will not reopen findings already recorded; frame objections strictly around computation.
- A party seeking a longer payment period must give reasons; here the only ground urged for 30 years was found insufficient.
Key Takeaways
- Arrears fixed at 13,066 MU, as computed by the Union in 2013.
- Himachal’s Rs. 420.77 crore capital-cost share is set off at Rs. 3.85 per unit.
- About 11,973 MU will be supplied over 20 lean seasons, extended from the 15 years proposed.
- No money will pass between the States; the settlement is cashless.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the 2011 decree decide?
It fixed Himachal Pradesh’s share at 7.19% of composite Punjab’s share of power from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas projects, rejected the 12% free-power claim, and left the arrears to be computed.
Will Punjab and Haryana pay Himachal in cash?
No. The Court directed a cashless settlement: the arrears will be supplied as electricity during lean seasons over 20 years, after setting off Himachal’s share of capital cost.
Why 20 years and not 15 or 30?
The Attorney General proposed 15 years and Haryana agreed; Punjab sought 30 without good reason. The Court extended the period to 20 years to ease the burden on the two States.
Conclusion
After three decades of litigation and several failed settlement attempts, the Supreme Court has converted its 2011 decree into a concrete schedule of power supply, and has told every State concerned that its directions must be carried out.
Practical takeaway: In execution, courts look at computation, not at re-opening the decree; a State or party that delays compliance should expect firm directions.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com