Punjab and Haryana Must Supply 11,973 Million Units of Power Arrears to Himachal Pradesh Over 20 Years, Rules Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Union of India
Case: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 1200
Date of Judgment: 06 November 2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Proceedings: Original Suit No. 2 of 1996
Court Observation
“It is particularly unfortunate that a dispute which has remained pending for several decades continues to be prolonged, requiring further judicial time and attention.”
Summary
The Supreme Court has brought to a close a decades-long dispute over sharing power from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas hydroelectric projects, directing Punjab and Haryana to supply approximately 11,973 million units of electricity to Himachal Pradesh over 20 lean seasons. The arrears will be supplied at about 598 million units per year during the lean season, from October to March, in the ratio of 58:42 for the Bhakra-Nangal Project and 60:40 for the Beas Projects.
The Court fixed the total energy arrears at 13,066 million units and assessed Himachal Pradesh’s liability towards its 7.19% share of the capital cost of the projects at Rs. 420.77 crores, comprising Rs. 249.23 crores attributable to Punjab and Rs. 171.55 crores attributable to Haryana. That liability was adjusted against the arrears by valuing the energy at Rs. 3.85 per unit, leaving the balance of about 11,973 million units to be supplied. The settlement is to be implemented on a cashless basis, and the Court stressed that its directions are binding and must be acted upon without reservation.
Key Holdings
- Himachal Pradesh is entitled to 7.19% of the power generated from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects, as declared by the Court’s judgment of 27 September 2011.
- The energy arrears due to Himachal Pradesh stand computed at 13,066 million units, to be supplied by Punjab and Haryana over 20 lean seasons.
- Himachal Pradesh’s liability towards its share of the capital cost of the projects is Rs. 420.77 crores, to be adjusted against the energy arrears at Rs. 3.85 per unit, leaving a balance of approximately 11,973 million units.
- The balance arrears shall be supplied at approximately 598 million units per annum over 20 lean seasons, in the ratio of 58:42 for the Bhakra-Nangal Project and 60:40 for the Beas Projects.
- The directions of the Court are binding and are required to be acted upon without reservation; the expectation of a decree pending for several decades cannot be rendered fruitless by the unwillingness of a judgment debtor.
Directions Issued
- Punjab and Haryana shall supply the balance energy arrears of approximately 11,973 million units to Himachal Pradesh at approximately 598 million units per annum over 20 lean seasons, in the inter se ratio of 58:42 for the Bhakra-Nangal Project and 60:40 for the Beas Projects.
- Himachal Pradesh shall pay the charges determined by the Bhakra Beas Management Board for the year in which each tranche of energy is received.
- The settlement shall be implemented on a cashless basis, with the capital-cost liability adjusted against the energy arrears as directed.
Background
The Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects were built substantially on territory that now forms part of Himachal Pradesh, submerging about 27,869 acres in the erstwhile Bilaspur State and over 65,050 acres in Kangra district, while the power generated was enjoyed principally by the composite State of Punjab and, after reorganisation in 1966, by Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Chandigarh. Himachal Pradesh claimed 7.19% of the power on the basis of the population transferred to it on reorganisation, a claim the Central Government rejected in 1994. The State instituted the suit under Article 131 of the Constitution in 1996. The Court decreed the suit in part on 27 September 2011, holding Himachal Pradesh entitled to 7.19% of the power, but disputes over computation of the arrears continued until this judgment.
Related Articles
Judgment Link: Read the full judgment (PDF)
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
