The Supreme Court, referring to
its 2006 Mullaperiyar dam judgment, held on November 10 that a State Assembly
"cannot through legislation do an act in conflict with the judgment of the
highest court which has attained
finality"
What did the SC say in its Latest
Order?
· Punjab had exceeded its legislative power in proceeding to nullify the
decree of the SC and therefore, the Punjab Act of 2004 cannot be said to be a validly enacted legislation.
· It referred to
the 1981 agreement which, to court said, "could not have been unilaterally terminated by one of the parties by exercising its legislative power:, and if it so,
"such unilateral action has to be declared contrary to the
Constitution of India as well as the provisions of
the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956."
· By introducing
the 2004 Act, Punjab defied two back-to-back apex
court verdicts,
pronounced in 2002 and 2004, it said.
· The first one had directed Punjab
to complete the SYL Canal in a
year. The second judgment
had ordered the formation of a central agency to take control of Punjab's work on the canal.Subscribe now bank of baroda po pattern
