Guardians of the Reservoir: Punjab Police vs CISF in a Clash Over Dam Security Jurisdiction

When the Punjab Assembly unanimously passed a resolution on July 11 rejecting the deployment of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel at Bhakra-Nangal dam sites, it set off a constitutional and political spark. The ruling AAP government—alongside opposition parties—asserted that Punjab Police has successfully secured the dams for decades, while branding the Centre's move as a costly federal overreach. The clash has now escalated into a broader debate over state sovereignty, federal authority, water politics, and public safety of critical infrastructure.

This article explores the multifaceted dimensions shaping this confrontation: from legal jurisdiction to electoral dynamics and governance implications.

1. The Mandate: Punjab vs Centre

In May, the Ministry of Home Affairs authorized the deployment of 296 CISF personnel to protect the Bhakra-Nangal dam, citing strategic vulnerability amid the Punjab–Haryana water sharing dispute. The Central move followed security concerns flagged by Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) engineers.

Punjab’s response came swiftly. The Assembly resolution, moved by Water Resources Minister Barinder Goyal, made three key assertions:

• Punjab Police have secured the dams without lapse for nearly 70 years, including border-adjacent infrastructure like the Shahpur Kandi dam Global Governance News+9Babushahi+9The Times of India+9The Times of India+11ThePrint+11The Times of India+11Babushahi+2Lokmat Times+2The Indian Express+2.

• The CISF deployment would add Rs 49.32 crore to the state’s annual expenditure, which Punjab refuses to bear LatestLY+7The Economic Times+7The Times of India+7.

• The state’s unanimous stand, reinforced by letters (May 27 and July 4), calls on the BBMB and Home Ministry to withdraw CISF personnel immediately ABP Live+5Lokmat Times+5The Times of India+5.

Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann reinforced this position, stating that if Punjab Police can guard its international border without charge, it can certainly secure dams Lokmat Times+9The Economic Times+9The Times of India+9.

2. Legal and Constitutional Crosscurrents

The crux of the dispute lies in how India’s Constitution allocates responsibilities:

• Police and law and order are state subjects, traditionally falling within the ambit of regional police forces.

• Critical infrastructure protection, however, falls under the purview of the Centre, authorised under the Central Industrial Security Force Act of 1968 Global Governance Newswww.ndtv.com+6Wikipedia+6Wikipedia+6.

CISF has a legal mandate to safeguard dams, refineries, airports, and nuclear sites. When deployed, however, this may limit state policing autonomy and complicates clarity on who bears responsibility—for both security and cost.

Punjab’s position asserts that no security breach has occurred under state police and that the CISF move creates unnecessary financial and jurisdictional conflict.

3. Politics of Water and Federal Tensions

Water sharing remains a flashpoint. The BBMB’s alleged bias toward Haryana, particularly on Sutlej-Yamuna Link waters, has fuelled friction Babushahi+3Lokmat Times+3The Times of India+3ABP Live+12Global Governance News+12The Times of India+12. By rejecting CISF deployment, Punjab is signaling a broader assertion of regional rights, extending beyond policing to resource control and financial accountability.

The Assembly’s resolution also highlights Punjab’s unspent Rs 104 crore in BBMB funds, pending review—an issue that adds weight to the narrative of Centre-state inequity The Times of India+15Lokmat Times+15Babushahi+15The Times of India+11The Economic Times+11The Times of India+11.

4. Criticism from Opposition: Congress Speaks Up

Opposition voices have keyed into this debate. Senior Congress leader Sukhpal Singh Khaira slammed the state government for “surrendering Punjab’s control” of dam security and holding the state to a nearly Rs 8.6 crore annual burden The Times of India+4Babushahi+4The Times of India+4. Similarly, Partap Singh Bajwa decried the move as symptomatic of Punjab being “bleeding its autonomy” under political theatrics Hindustan Times+3Global Governance News+3The Times of India+3. These critiques resonate with voters wary of federal encroachment into local prerogatives.

5. Centre’s Defense: Infrastructure Security Imperatives

Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu defended the CISF deployment as a routine safeguard mandated for critical government-controlled infrastructure, not motivated by politics The Times of India+2Babushahi+2The Times of India+2. He also questioned Punjab’s selective objection, noting that CISF already protects central institutions and the Prime Minister without public resistance. The government maintains this aligns with protocols for borders and sensitive sites, particularly amid inter-state tensions The Times of India.

6. Operational Capability: Punjab Police vs CISF

Punjab Police have a strong track record in dam security. The SWAT-led response to the 2015 Gurdaspur terror attack displayed capacity to deal with high-risk scenarios Wikipedia. By contrast, CISF specializes in guarding industrial and public infrastructure, equipped with counter-terror units and central coordination mechanisms. According to Punjab leaders, their familiarity with local terrains and tribal relationships already gives them operational edge Lokmat Times+15Babushahi+15The Times of India+15.

7. Fiscal Footprint and Governance Impacts

Punjab says the Rs 49.32 crore annual cost—split among BBMB states—will eventually affect state budgets or farmer subsidy schemes Babushahi+15Lokmat Times+15Hindustan Times+15. Budget debates have pointed to existing infrastructure spending that could fund enhanced state protection. Civic organizations suggest these funds could have instead streamlined canal systems, flood relief, or police modernization efforts.

8. What Happens Next? The Road Ahead

Many agree the dispute sets the stage for complex negotiations:

• The Centre and BBMB may delay CISF deployment, partially due to Punjab's backlash.

• Budget funding transfers from Punjab to CISF risk being blocked by the Assembly.

• A reconstitution of BBMB has been tabled by the state, prompting possible legal scrutiny.

• Competing claims may lead to Supreme Court or collaborative tribunal oversight, a process that could delay or reshape plans.

Meanwhile, Punjab-AAP positions this conflict as a federal assertion against unnecessary central intervention, a narrative gaining traction ahead of state elections.

Conclusion: More than Just Dam Security

What began as a jurisdictional overlap over dam protection has evolved into a microcosm of federal friction, engaging issues like resource control, financial equity, public safety, local identity, and Centre-state roles. For Punjab, it is a statement of regional autonomy. For the Centre, it is about securing infrastructure and maintaining national resilience.

How the dispute unveils over the next weeks—through budget stand-offs, tribunal passages, or media narratives—will determine whether this becomes a constitutional precedent or simply another political tussle.