The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Punjab government over the long-pending Bhakra-Nangal and Beas power dues dispute involving Himachal Pradesh. The Court observed that Punjab has a habit of not complying with judicial orders and warned that it should be prepared to face the consequences if the 2011 judgment is not implemented.

The dispute relates to Himachal Pradesh's entitlement to *7.19%* of the electricity generated from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas projects following the reorganisation of Punjab in 1966. In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Himachal Pradesh, but the judgment has remained largely unimplemented.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the Court that after examining historical records with the help of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and holding discussions with Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and the Union Power Ministry, a workable settlement framework had been prepared.

The proposal suggests adjusting dues through electricity instead of direct financial payments. Under the proposal, Punjab and Haryana would supply a total of *13,066 million units (MU)* of electricity to Himachal Pradesh over 15 lean seasons at the rate of *871 MU annually*.

The capital cost liability has also been assessed at *₹420.7 crore, of which Punjab's share is *₹249.2 crore** and Haryana's share is *₹171.5 crore*. This liability is proposed to be adjusted against the energy dues.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Balbir Singh, representing Himachal Pradesh and Haryana respectively, supported the Attorney General's proposal. However, Punjab opposed the proposal, arguing that it was not practical and could cause significant financial loss to the state.

The Supreme Court observed that the dispute has continued for nearly six decades and that its 2011 judgment cannot remain unenforced indefinitely. The Bench made it clear that if no settlement is reached, Himachal Pradesh would receive the benefits of the judgment along with interest from 2011.

The Court granted Punjab two weeks to reconsider its position and fixed *August 12* as the next date of hearing.