The Supreme Court heard Telangana’s writ petition challenging the Union government’s financial support to Andhra Pradesh for the Polavaram Project, raising concerns over water diversion and floodwater usage. The Bench examined whether the dispute should proceed as a writ or a civil suit and listed the matter for further hearing on Monday.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday heard a writ petition filed by the State of Telangana challenging the Union government’s decision to provide financial assistance to Andhra Pradesh for the expansion of the Polavaram Project.
The matter was listed before a Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi.
At the outset of the hearing, the Chief Justice observed,
“At the end of the day, this is a water dispute.”
ALSO READ: Polavaram–Banakacharla Link Project: Supreme Court to Hear Telangana’s Plea on January 5
Responding to this, senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Telangana, disagreed and stated,
“No, mylords. Suddenly, Andhra Pradesh starts diverting the excess 484 TMC they have and also takes excess flood water.”
Singhvi further explained that Telangana, being a newly formed state, is facing serious difficulties because its water infrastructure is still under construction. He submitted,
“Telangana, being a new state with most barrages still under construction, is affected as this flood water is part of the 968 TMC allocated to it.”
The Chief Justice acknowledged the concern and remarked,
“AP’s actions will reduce the water available to Telangana.”
Singhvi then referred to the views of the Central Water Commission and the Ministry of Jal Shakti, stating,
“The Central Water Commission and Jal Shakti Ministry say flood waters cannot be reversed. On Jan 2, 2026, the Union formed a High Powered Committee.”
Clarifying the limited scope of the present hearing, the Chief Justice said,
“We are currently only considering whether the matter should proceed as a suit or a writ petition.”
During the course of arguments, Singhvi highlighted concerns regarding additional construction components and said,
“The addition of a lift component near the barrages has not been ruled out. However, the CWC last month directed that no in-principle approval should be granted. The committee cannot be rendered ineffective before it even functions.”
Responding to this, Chief Justice Kant observed,
“We are examining whether the AP government has violated or attempted to violate the award. Since Polavaram is a Central project, nothing can be added or diverted without the Centre’s permission. You may write to the committee.”
The Bench then added,
“For now, we can only urge the committee, which is active and capable of intervening.”
Singhvi, however, expressed reservations and stated,
“But the committee cannot go against the directive of the CWC chairman.”
Referring to the constitutional route available, Singhvi argued,
“131 is a civil suit, today’s matter is 32. Considering the directions of Jal Shakti, and the very existence of the committee, mylords, this should be stayed.”
Also Read: Karnataka vs. Tamil Nadu||Supreme Court Decision on ‘Cauvery River Water’ Dispute
The Chief Justice responded by pointing to past practice, stating,
“We’ve been dealing with 7–8 similar suits over the past few years; whenever such an issue arises, a suit is filed.”
Senior advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for the opposing side, argued that Telangana had already given its approval and said,
“Telangana is deemed to have given consent under the Reorganisation Act.”
Seeking time from the court, Singhvi then requested,
“Mylords, may I request a deferment to next week? I will file a proper suit then.”
Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta later raised concerns about irreversible consequences if construction was allowed to continue. He submitted,
“If the matter is not stayed, the construction in Andhra Pradesh will become irreversible. The first project was initiated before Telangana became a state For the second project, I must apply for a PFR, but at that stage I am not entitled to be heard. The CWC clears it, and I cannot even submit the DPR.”
Gupta also questioned the intent behind the petition and argued,
“This petition is mala fide; its sole purpose is to bring before the Supreme Court an issue that lies with the Union.”
Concluding the hearing for the day, the Chief Justice assured both sides, stating,
“We will hear both sides and hope a viable solution is presented.”
The Bench directed that the matter will now be taken up for further hearing on Monday.
Read Live Coverage:
Case Title:
State of Telangana v Union of India and Others
W.P.(C) No. 1258 of 2025
Click Here to Read More Reports On Polavaram
