Former chief minister and leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur on Saturday welcomed the Supreme Court’s verdict on Himachal Pradesh’s electricity share in the BBMB but criticised chief minister (CM) Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu for trying to take political credit for it.
He said the verdict was the result of nearly three decades of legal struggle, efforts by successive state governments, judicial intervention and support from the Central government.
While addressing media in Shimla, Thakur said that the CM should refrain from portraying the judgment as his personal achievement. He emphasised that the verdict is a collective victory for the people of Himachal Pradesh and the culmination of a long struggle to secure the state’s legitimate rights.
Tracing the history of the dispute, Jai Ram Thakur said that the issue of Himachal Pradesh’s rightful share arose following the reorganisation of Punjab in 1966. Former chief minister Shanta Kumar strongly advocated the concept of royalty on water resources, arguing that Himachal Pradesh deserved compensation for its natural resources.
He recalled that the matter was taken to the Supreme Court in 1996 during the tenure of former CM Virbhadra Singh. Subsequently, on September 27, 2011, during the BJP government led by professor Prem Kumar Dhumal, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment recognising Himachal Pradesh’s 7.19 % electricity share in the BBMB projects.
“The most significant legal milestone was achieved in 2011 when professor Prem Kumar Dhumal was chief minister. The Sukhu government cannot erase this history merely because the final judgment has been delivered during its tenure,” Thakur said.
He further explained that during his own tenure as CM, the Himachal Pradesh cabinet, on January 4, 2018, approved further negotiations regarding the return of differential energy. The state government continued pursuing the matter before the Supreme Court and with the concerned states.
Thakur said that important developments took place during 2019 and 2020, including directions from the Supreme Court requiring the concerned parties to submit their positions. The intervention of the attorney general of India, representing the Union government, subsequently helped develop a practical cashless settlement mechanism.