The BBMB Controversy of 2025: The Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) Controversy of 2025 centers on a heated water-sharing dispute between Punjab and Haryana, primarily over the allocation of water from the Bhakra-Nangal Dam on the Sutlej River. This conflict, rooted in decades-old tensions since Haryana’s formation in 1966, escalated in April and May 2025 due to decisions by the BBMB, which manages water and power distribution for Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Himachal Pradesh.
Below is a detailed explanation of The BBMB Controversy of 2025: based on available information:
Background
Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB): Established under the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966, BBMB oversees the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas projects, managing water and hydroelectric power distribution among partner states. The Bhakra Dam, located in Himachal Pradesh, is critical for irrigation, power generation, and drinking water supply.
Historical Context: The water-sharing dispute between Punjab and Haryana stems from the 1966 reorganization, with disagreements over the allocation of Sutlej and Beas river waters. The 1981 Water Treaty set specific quotas, but Punjab has long argued that its water resources are overexploited, while Haryana claims it faces shortages, particularly for drinking water.
Key Players: The controversy involves state governments (Punjab’s Aam Aadmi Party-led government under CM Bhagwant Mann and Haryana’s BJP-led government), the BBMB, the Central Government (Union Ministry of Power and Home Affairs), and the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Key Events of the 2025 Controversy
Water Release Order (April-May 2025)
● On April 28, 2025, Haryana requested 8,500 cusecs of water from the Bhakra Dam, citing an emergency need due to repairs on the Western Yamuna Canal (WYC). The BBMB approved the release, including an additional 4,500 cusecs of surplus water starting April 30, despite Punjab’s objections that Haryana had already exceeded its allocated share (103% by March 2025). Punjab argued it was only providing 4,000 cusecs on humanitarian grounds.
● Punjab claimed the emergency cited by Haryana ended by May 1, as WYC repairs were completed, making the additional water release unnecessary.
Bureaucratic Reshuffle and Punjab’s Response:
● On May 1, 2025, BBMB transferred Punjab cadre official Akashdeep Singh, Director of Water Regulation at Nangal, replacing him with Haryana cadre officer Sanjeev Kumar. Punjab viewed this as a move to favor Haryana’s interests, especially since Akashdeep had insisted on formal procedures for water release. Punjab’s Chief Engineer questioned Sanjeev Kumar’s qualifications for water regulation, demanding the transfer be revoked.
● Punjab’s ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) announced statewide protests, and on May 8, Education Minister Harjot Singh Bains locked BBMB Chairman Manoj Tripathi in a guest house at Nangal Dam for three hours to prevent the water release, escalating tensions.
Punjab Police Deployment:
Punjab deployed police at Nangal Dam on May 1, with about two dozen personnel and two DSP-rank officers stationed to block the water release. This followed CM Mann’s visit to the dam. The BBMB and Haryana criticized this as an “illegal occupation,” while Punjab claimed it was a precautionary measure to protect its water rights.
High Court Intervention:
● On May 5, 2025, BBMB filed a plea in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging Punjab had forcibly taken over Nangal Dam operations, impacting water supply to Haryana, Delhi, and Rajasthan. The court, on May 7, barred Punjab from interfering in BBMB’s operations and directed compliance with the Union Home Secretary’s May 2 decision to release 4,500 cusecs to Haryana. Punjab was advised to raise grievances with the Central Government rather than disrupt BBMB functions.
● On May 15, Punjab sought to recall the May 6 court order, arguing that the Union Home Secretary lacked authority under BBMB Rules of 1974 to decide water allocation and that meeting minutes were not circulated properly. The court granted Punjab two days to file a response, scheduling the next hearing for May 22.
Political Escalation:
● Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann accused the Central Government, particularly Union Power Minister Manohar Lal Khattar (former Haryana CM), of using BBMB to favor Haryana and infringe on Punjab’s water rights. Mann called BBMB a “white elephant” and a “puppet of the Centre,” alleging procedural violations like insufficient notice for meetings (24 hours instead of the mandated seven days). He announced plans to raise the issue at a NITI Aayog meeting and demanded BBMB’s reconstitution.
● Mann warned of a potential law-and-order crisis if BBMB continued its actions and vowed to protect Punjab’s water share, even suggesting officers’ safety could be at risk if they attempted unauthorized releases.
● Punjab’s Legislative Assembly passed resolutions condemning BBMB’s decisions as unconstitutional and proposed repealing the Dam Safety Act to introduce state-specific legislation.
Other Developments:
● Punjab accused BBMB of financial mismanagement, claiming the state was owed ₹142 crore and that 3,000 Punjab cadre posts in BBMB remained unfilled to weaken its influence.
● Security concerns were raised due to intelligence reports of threats to BBMB projects, prompting discussions about replacing Punjab and Himachal Pradesh police with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).
● On May 21, during a “victory rally” at Nangal, Mann reiterated his commitment to reviewing water agreements every 25 years due to changing water levels and thwarting attempts to divert Punjab’s water.
Core Issues
● Water Allocation Dispute: Punjab argued that Haryana’s demand for 8,500 cusecs (later increased to 10,300 cusecs) violated the 1981 Water Treaty, as Haryana had already used its share. Punjab emphasized its own water crisis, as an agrarian state reliant on the Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi rivers. Haryana justified its demand citing drinking water shortages in several districts.
● Procedural Violations: Punjab accused BBMB of bypassing rules, such as holding emergency meetings without proper notice and making unilateral decisions without state consensus.
● Political Tensions: The dispute was politicized, with Punjab’s AAP government accusing the BJP-led Centre and Haryana of colluding to undermine Punjab’s rights. The involvement of Union Minister Khattar added a political dimension, with Punjab alleging bias.
Federal vs. State Authority: Punjab viewed BBMB’s actions as an overreach by the Central Government, undermining the state’s riparian rights as the rivers flow primarily through Punjab.
Broader Implications
Inter-State Relations: The controversy deepened mistrust between Punjab and Haryana, complicating regional cooperation. The involvement of other states like Rajasthan and Delhi, which also rely on BBMB water, added complexity.
Legal and Administrative Precedent: The High Court’s rulings and Punjab’s push for BBMB reconstitution could reshape how water disputes are managed under federal structures like the Punjab Reorganisation Act.
Security Concerns: The deployment of Punjab Police and protests at Nangal Dam, coupled with border tensions with Pakistan, raised fears of law-and-order issues and potential vulnerabilities at critical infrastructure like the Bhakra Dam.
Environmental and Economic Impact: Punjab highlighted the risk to its agrarian economy, while BBMB noted potential environmental and human rights impacts on Haryana, Delhi, and Rajasthan if water releases were blocked.
Current Status (as of May 24, 2025)
● The Punjab and Haryana High Court is actively hearing the case, with the next hearing scheduled after May 22, 2025, to review Punjab’s plea to recall the water release order.
● Punjab continues to protest BBMB’s decisions, with CM Mann advocating for a review of water-sharing agreements and BBMB’s structure.
● The Central Government and BBMB maintain that the water release to Haryana is necessary and legally mandated, while Punjab explores legal and political avenues to assert its rights.
The BBMB Controversy of 2025 is a multifaceted dispute involving water scarcity, federal-state power dynamics, and political rivalries. Punjab’s resistance to BBMB’s water release orders, coupled with accusations of procedural violations and central bias, has escalated tensions with Haryana and the Centre. The ongoing legal battle and public protests underscore the sensitivity of water as a resource in India’s federal framework, with potential long-term implications for inter-state water management and regional stability.
For further details, you can refer to the BBMB’s official website (bbmb.gov.in) or follow updates on the Punjab and Haryana High Court proceedings.