Today,The Supreme Court dismissed Telangana’s Article 32 writ challenging expansion of the Polavaram Multipurpose Irrigation Project, while permitting the state to pursue its grievances before an appropriate forum. CJI Surya Kant’s bench heard claims alleging diversion of Godavari waters.
NEW DELHI: Today, the Supreme Court dismissed the Telangana government’s writ petition filed under Article 32, which challenged the expansion of the Polavaram Multipurpose Irrigation Project. The court granted the state the option to file a new suit to address its concerns in a suitable forum.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, heard the petition from Telangana against the Union of India and the Andhra Pradesh government, claiming illegal diversion of Godavari river waters beyond the limits set by the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award.
Also Read: Polavaram–Banakacharla Link Project: Supreme Court to Hear Telangana’s Plea on January 5
The Polavaram Multipurpose Irrigation Project, situated in Andhra Pradesh, has been a long-standing source of conflict between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, with Telangana alleging that the project’s expansion would disrupt inter-state water allocations from the Godavari River system.
Previously, on January 5, the Chief Justice indicated that the dispute seemed to fit the category of an inter-state water conflict more suited for a civil suit. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Telangana, argued that Andhra Pradesh had begun diverting excessive flood waters beyond the agreed limits, which poses serious and irreversible harm to Telangana, a relatively new state still constructing several barrages.
He claimed that Andhra Pradesh was diverting flood waters in excess of 484 TMC, impacting Telangana’s rightful share of 968 TMC, which threatened to permanently diminish the available water for Telangana.
He stressed that the case involved significant constitutional and statutory violations.
Singhvi argued,
“I want to place on record the perspective of Article 32. The reason why my lords should consider this is that (1) there is a fixed allocation of the quantum of Godavari waters, and any diversion beyond the award is an illegality; and (2) there is a blatant violation of relevant sections of the Godavari Act,”
In response, the Chief Justice noted that Telangana was essentially claiming violations of statutory provisions and an improper diversion of allocated water under the tribunal’s award.
He remarked,
“You are saying there is an allocation of distribution of water, and the attempt now is to go beyond that,”
Justice Bagchi also mentioned that other states, Karnataka and Maharashtra, were part of the Godavari award but were not included in Telangana’s petition.
However, the Chief Justice consistently raised concerns about the maintainability of the case, emphasizing that
“ultimately, at the end of the day, it is a water dispute.”
Singhvi had objected to this characterization, stating that Telangana approached the court under Article 32 in an emergency context, especially in light of findings from central authorities. Singhvi highlighted that the Central Water Commission and the Union Ministry of Jal Shakti had previously noted that flood waters could not be reversed and pointed out that on January 2, 2026, the Union government established a High-Powered Committee (HPC) to investigate the matter. He argued that despite the committee’s formation, Andhra Pradesh continued construction activities, leaving Telangana with no effective recourse except to approach the Supreme Court.
The Chief Justice noted that once the Centre constituted a committee, Telangana should raise its concerns with that body. He remarked that as Polavaram is a national project, no modifications, diversions, or additions could occur without prior approval from the central government.
Also Read: Karnataka vs. Tamil Nadu||Supreme Court Decision on ‘Cauvery River Water’ Dispute
Expressing hesitance to intervene at this point,the Chief Justice said,
“When the Central government has formed a committee, before the committee has reached a solution…,”
Singhvi contended that the committee did not have the authority to grant interim relief or halt ongoing construction, asserting that only the Supreme Court could prevent irreversible damage. He emphasized that the CWC chairman, who led the committee, had previously indicated that the diversion should cease, highlighting the sensitivity of the situation as “emotive.”
The bench suggested that Telangana’s proper remedy lay in filing a civil suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, including Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka as parties, mentioning that numerous similar water disputes were already pending before the Court.
Following this discussion, Singhvi requested permission to withdraw the petition.
He stated,
“I withdraw, and will file the suit which is almost ready… I cannot be remediless everywhere.”
The bench then dismissed the writ petition, saying: “The writ petition is disposed of, being prima facie not maintainable, with liberty to the state petitioner to avail appropriate remedy and raise all the issues that have been taken up in the instant writ petition.”
Case Title: State of Telangana v. Union of India
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
