What Happened
- Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann announced that the state government will formally claim Rs 1.44 lakh crore from Rajasthan for water supplied through the Gang Canal via the Ferozepur Feeder — charges that have remained unpaid since 1960, a period of 66 years.
- The claim is rooted in a tripartite agreement signed on September 4, 1920, between the British Government, the Bikaner State, and the Bahawalpur State, which established that Rajasthan (as successor to Bikaner) would pay Punjab for water on a per-acre basis.
- Under this arrangement, 18,000 cusecs of water flows continuously from Punjab's Sutlej-fed canal system to Rajasthan through the Ferozepur Feeder and the Gang Canal.
- Payments were made until 1960; after the Indus Waters Treaty (signed September 19, 1960) reorganised the basin's water allocation between India and Pakistan, Rajasthan stopped paying — and has not paid since.
- CM Mann stated that the 1920 agreement has been cancelled, making outstanding dues immediately recoverable, and that Punjab has written formally to the Rajasthan government to settle the claim.
- The Gang Canal infrastructure — with its head works at Ferozepur (foundation stone: December 5, 1925; completed 1927) — was built specifically to channel Sutlej waters to the arid regions of northwest Rajasthan.
- This dispute is distinct from (but related to) the separate Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal controversy involving Punjab and Haryana.
Static Topic Bridges
Inter-State River Water Disputes: Constitutional and Legal Framework
India's constitutional and legal framework for resolving inter-state water disputes is elaborate but has historically resulted in prolonged litigation. Article 262 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to legislate for the adjudication of disputes relating to the use, distribution, or control of inter-state rivers or river valleys, and notably allows Parliament to bar even the Supreme Court from exercising jurisdiction over such disputes. Under Article 262, Parliament has enacted two key laws. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (IRWDA) empowers the central government to constitute Water Disputes Tribunals — whose awards are binding on the parties and published in the Official Gazette. The River Boards Act, 1956 provides for advisory River Boards (with no adjudicatory power) for integrated river basin management.
- Article 262: Parliament can legislate on inter-state water disputes; can exclude Supreme Court jurisdiction.
- IRWDA 1956: Tribunal award published in Official Gazette → legally binding on states; states cannot approach ordinary courts.
- Water is in the State List (Entry 17, Schedule VII) — states have primary jurisdiction over water use; but Entry 56 of the Union List empowers Parliament to regulate interstate rivers in the national interest.
- Active Water Dispute Tribunals: Krishna (Krishna-I, II), Godavari, Narmada, Cauvery, Mahadayi — all with ongoing or concluded proceedings.
- The Ravi-Beas Waters Tribunal: specifically relevant to Punjab-Rajasthan-Haryana disputes.
- Major inter-state river disputes: Cauvery (Tamil Nadu vs Karnataka), Mahadayi/Mandovi (Goa vs Karnataka/Maharashtra), Krishna (Andhra Pradesh vs Telangana vs Karnataka), SYL (Punjab vs Haryana).
Connection to this news: Punjab's claim against Rajasthan is not currently before a Water Dispute Tribunal — it is framed as a contractual/financial claim under the 1920 agreement, making its legal resolution pathway uncertain. Understanding Article 262 and the IRWDA is essential context for why this dispute may not follow the usual tribunal route.
The 1920 Tripartite Agreement and the Gang Canal
The Gang Canal (also called the Ganga Canal in Rajasthan, not to be confused with the Ganga river system) was conceived as a famine-relief infrastructure project. The severe famine of 1899–1900 devastated the Bikaner princely state, prompting British engineers to study the feasibility of diverting Sutlej waters to northwestern Bikaner. Initial plans were delayed by objections from the Bahawalpur State (then part of British India's western frontier). With Viceroy Lord Curzon's intervention, a tripartite conference was held in 1906, and the final agreement was signed on September 4, 1920, between the British Government, Bikaner State, and Bahawalpur State. Construction of the head works at Ferozepur began in December 1925 and was completed in 1927, with 89 miles of lined canal channelling 18,000 cusecs of Sutlej water westward into the Bikaner region.
- Canal: Gang Canal (Ferozepur Feeder → Gang Canal system, Rajasthan)
- Water source: Sutlej River (via Ferozepur Head Works)
- Discharge: 18,000 cusecs
- Original agreement: September 4, 1920 — per-acre water royalty payable to Punjab by Bikaner/Rajasthan.
- Payments made until: 1960 (Indus Waters Treaty year).
- Post-1960: Rajasthan continued drawing 18,000 cusecs but stopped paying — CM Mann calls this 66 years of unpaid dues totalling Rs 1.44 lakh crore.
- The irrigation command area of the Gang Canal supports agriculture in northwestern Rajasthan's arid districts (Ganganagar, Hanumangarh region).
Connection to this news: Punjab's Rs 1.44 lakh crore claim flows directly from this colonial-era arrangement. The Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 — which reorganised the Indus basin's water allocation between India and Pakistan — is being cited as the event after which Rajasthan stopped paying, though Punjab argues the treaty does not extinguish the 1920 payment obligation.
The Indus Waters Treaty (1960) and Its Domestic Implications
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was signed on September 19, 1960, in Karachi between Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Ayub Khan, brokered by the World Bank. It divided the six rivers of the Indus basin: India received exclusive use of the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) while Pakistan received the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab). The IWT had major domestic implications for India's northwestern states: the reallocation of eastern river waters (previously shared under the 1945 Stanfield Award and various interim arrangements) triggered fresh inter-state distribution agreements. A 1955 agreement had allocated water shares among Punjab, PEPSU (which merged with Punjab in 1956), Rajasthan, and J&K. Punjab's claim is that after 1960, when the IWT formalised its exclusive use of Sutlej waters, Rajasthan should have renegotiated payment terms — but instead simply stopped paying.
- IWT 1960: Eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India; western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan.
- Permanent Indus Commission: bilateral mechanism with commissioners from both countries for IWT implementation and dispute resolution.
- India's 1955 interstate allocation: Punjab 7.3 BCM, PEPSU 1.6 BCM, Rajasthan 9.9 BCM, J&K 0.8 BCM (of 19.55 BCM estimated flow).
- The Ravi-Beas surplus water — allocated between Punjab and Haryana under 1976 and 1981 agreements — is the subject of the separate SYL canal controversy.
- India placed the IWT in abeyance following the Pahalgam terror attack (April 2025), marking the first such suspension in the treaty's history.
Connection to this news: Punjab argues the IWT's reallocation of Sutlej waters to India does not absolve Rajasthan of payment obligations under the pre-existing 1920 agreement — a legal position Rajasthan disputes. The IWT's domestic fallout is thus at the heart of this financial claim.
Key Facts & Data
- Claim amount: Rs 1.44 lakh crore (unpaid water dues since 1960)
- Duration of non-payment: 66 years (1960–2026)
- Water supplied: 18,000 cusecs through Ferozepur Feeder → Gang Canal
- Source river: Sutlej River
- Original agreement: September 4, 1920 — British Government, Bikaner State, Bahawalpur State
- Infrastructure: Ferozepur Head Works (completed 1927), Gang Canal (89 miles of lined canal)
- Payment basis: Per-acre water royalty (under 1920 agreement)
- Payments stopped: 1960 (after Indus Waters Treaty)
- IWT signed: September 19, 1960 (India-Pakistan, World Bank-brokered)
- Relevant constitutional provision: Article 262 (inter-state water disputes)
- Relevant law: Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956
- Punjab CM's position: 1920 agreement cancelled, outstanding dues payable immediately; formal letter sent to Rajasthan
- Separate dispute: SYL Canal (Punjab vs Haryana — different from the Punjab-Rajasthan Gang Canal row)