KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Indus River System Authority (Irsa) and others in a petition challenging the planned construction of new canals on the Indus River.

A grower of Sindh, Qurban Maitlo, moved the SHC against the appointment of federal member of Irsa Asjad Imtiaz Ali and stated that his appointment was made in clear violation of a policy decision as well as an earlier judgement of the SHC on the subject matter.

Citing the secretaries of establishment and water resources divisions, Irsa chairman, secretary of the Sindh irrigation department and federal member of Irsa as respondents, petitioner Qurban Ali Maitlo submitted that he was a grower in the lowest riparian area and has a vested interest in ensuring the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Representing the petitioner, Barrister Zamir Ghumro argued that Irsa’s composition was illegal without its federal member being appointed from Sindh and it could not issue the water availability certificate for the construction of Cholistan and Thal phase II canals.

Irsa’s federal member appointed in violation of policy decision dating year 2000, petitioner tells bench

He submitted that Mr Ali was holding his position without lawful authority as the SHC had already ruled that federal member of Irsa must be from Sindh while the Supreme Court had also dismissed an appeal filed by the federal government against such order in 2021.

After a preliminary hearing, a two-judge bench of SHC headed by Justice Mohammad Faisal Kamal Alam put the respondents on notice with direction to file their comments till April 7.

The bench also issued notices to the Attorney General of Pakistan and the provincial law officer for next hearing.

The petitioner submitted that Irsa was established under the Irsa Act, 1992 with the mandate to regulate and monitor the distribution of water sources of the Indus River, in accordance with the Water Accord, 1991, among the provinces, while the authority would be comprised of five members with one from each province and the federal government nominating one member.

He also asserted that since Sindh had witnessed the drought conditions during 1999-2002, a policy decision was taken through an executive order in July 2000 that the federal member of Irsa must be from Sindh in order to safeguard the interests of the province which was the lowest riparian. The decision was taken in order to apply principle of proportionality as Sindh was major stakeholder of water having 42 per cent of water though reduced under 1991 Accord than the share provided in Sindh-Punjab Water Agreement 1945.

The petitioner further maintained that the federal member in question was appointed in 2019 and the same had not only been made in defiance of the policy decision but also against a judgment of the SHC handed down in May 2017 holding that the federal government was bound to comply with the executive order and appoint federal member of Irsa from Sindh.

He contended that due to the lack of proper representation of Sindh in Irsa, its decisions were biased and prejudicial to the interests of the province and the same was evident in its recent decision to construct the Cholistan and Thal canals phase-II, despite insufficient water availability in the Indus Basin while being the lowest riparian area, Sindh’s unique water requirements necessitated careful consideration and protection.

Consequently, the petitioner argued that the very existence of the Indus Delta, which was already facing an ecological disaster characterised by seawater intrusion, loss of mangrove forests, dwindling fisheries, and saltwater contamination of freshwater sources, was at the risk.

He asked the court to declare that the decisions made by Irsa including but not limited to the water availability certificate for construction of such canals as unconstitutional, illegal and void ab initio.

Published in Dawn, March 27th, 2025