Polavaram Water Dispute|File Fresh Suit Before Appropriate Forum; Dismisses Plea: SC Tells Telangana

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the plea filed by Telangana against the Union of India and the Andhra Pradesh government, alleging illegal diversion of Godavari river waters beyond the limits fixed under the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award.

Appearing for Telangana, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the issue involved serious constitutional and statutory violations. “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,” Singhvi submitted.

Responding, the CJI observed that the state was essentially alleging violations of statutory provisions and diversion of allocated water under the tribunal’s award. “You are saying there is an allocation of distribution of water, and the attempt now is to go beyond that,” he said.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that other states; Karnataka and Maharashtra, were also parties to the Godavari award but had not been made parties in Telangana’s petition.

Following this, Singhvi sought permission to withdraw the petition, stating, “I withdraw, and will file the suit which is almost ready... I cannot be remediless everywhere.”

The Bench then disposed of the petition, noting: “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.”

The Polavaram Multipurpose Irrigation Project, located in Andhra Pradesh, has been a long-standing point of contention between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, with the former alleging that project expansion would alter inter-state water allocations from the Godavari River system.

Previously, on January 5, the Court CJI had indicated that the dispute appeared to fall squarely within the realm of an inter-state water dispute more suited to a civil suit. Singhvi, appearing for Telangana, contended that Andhra Pradesh had begun diverting excess flood waters beyond the agreed limits, causing serious and irreversible prejudice to Telangana, a relatively new state with several barrages still under construction. Singhvi argued that Andhra Pradesh was diverting flood waters in excess of 484 TMC, impacting Telangana’s legitimate share of 968 TMC, and that the diversion threatened to permanently reduce the water available to Telangana.

The CJI, had however, repeatedly flagged the issue of maintainability, observing that “ultimately, at the end of the day, it is a water dispute.” Singhvi had resisted this characterisation, submitting that Telangana had approached the Court under Article 32 in an emergency situation, particularly in light of directions and findings of central authorities.

Singhvi had pointed out that the Central Water Commission and the Union Ministry of Jal Shakti had earlier opined that flood waters could not be reversed, and highlighted that on January 2, 2026, the Union government had constituted a High-Powered Committee (HPC) to examine the issue. According to him, despite the committee’s formation, Andhra Pradesh continued with construction activities, leaving Telangana with no effective remedy except approaching the Supreme Court.

The CJI had noted that once the Centre had constituted a committee, Telangana ought to place its grievances before that forum. He observed that as Polavaram was a national project, no modification, diversion, or addition could be undertaken without prior central approval. “When the Central government has formed a committee, before the committee has reached a solution…,” the CJI remarked, expressing reluctance to intervene at this stage.

Singhvi had countered that the committee lacked powers to grant interim relief or stay ongoing construction, and that only the Supreme Court could prevent irreversible consequences. He had stressed that the CWC chairman, who headed the committee, had previously indicated that the diversion should be stopped, making the situation particularly sensitive and “emotive.”

The Bench had suggested that Telangana’s proper remedy lay in filing a civil suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, impleading Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka as parties, noting that several such water disputes were already pending before the Court in the form of suits.

Case Title: State of Telangana v. Union of India

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Hearing Date: January 12, 2026