The Supreme Court on Monday raised serious questions over the maintainability of a writ petition filed by the Telangana government challenging Andhra Pradesh’s proposed Polavaram–Banakacherla, also referred to as the Nallamalasagar Link Project, which involves the diversion of Godavari river water into the Krishna basin. The court indicated that the dispute, at its core, appeared to be an inter-state water sharing conflict, for which the Constitution provides a specific and more appropriate legal remedy.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, which deals with disputes between states, would likely be a “more comprehensive and effective” mechanism to adjudicate the matter. The bench noted that Telangana’s grievance stemmed from apprehensions that Andhra Pradesh’s project could adversely affect its allocated share of Godavari waters under existing tribunal awards.

The court’s observations came while hearing Telangana’s writ petition under Article 32, which sought directions restraining Andhra Pradesh and its agencies from proceeding with preparatory steps, including the preparation of a detailed project report (DPR), issuance of tenders, and execution-related activities for the ambitious river-linking project.

“At the end of the day, it is a water dispute,” the bench remarked while addressing senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared on behalf of the Telangana government. “You apprehend that their project might affect your share of the Godavari water.”

The bench emphasised that where the constitutional framework envisages a specific remedy for a particular class of disputes—such as inter-state conflicts—the Supreme Court ought to be circumspect in entertaining a writ petition directly under Article 32. “Our issue is maintainability,” the court said. “If the constitutional scheme envisages a different remedy, should we not resort to that?”

Article 131 of the Constitution vests the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between the Union and states, or between two or more states, particularly where questions of legal rights are involved. Inter-state river water disputes have traditionally been resolved either through tribunals constituted under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act or through suits invoking Article 131.

Singhvi, however, sought to convince the court that the present case warranted immediate intervention under Article 32, arguing that Telangana had no other effective remedy at this stage. He pointed out that the Union government had already permitted the constitution of a high-powered committee to examine aspects of the project, and that Telangana feared this process would legitimise Andhra Pradesh’s actions.

“I have no other remedy to stop the committee from going into the issue,” Singhvi submitted, contending that the very formation of the committee justified the Supreme Court’s intervention to protect Telangana’s interests.

The bench responded by observing that Telangana’s concerns appeared to be linked to the potential impact of Andhra Pradesh’s project on the existing award of the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, which governs water sharing among riparian states. The court noted that if the apprehension was that Andhra Pradesh’s actions could dilute or undermine the tribunal’s determinations, a suit between states would provide a more structured and exhaustive forum to address such issues.

Singhvi further argued that Andhra Pradesh was poised to “siphon off several hundreds of thousand million cubic feet (tmc) of flood water” from the Godavari, despite the earlier tribunal award having been frozen. He maintained that the mere availability of a remedy under Article 131 did not automatically bar the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 32, especially where fundamental or constitutional issues were involved.

The bench, however, remained unconvinced. Reiterating its preliminary view, it observed that a suit between states would allow the court to comprehensively examine factual, technical and legal aspects of the dispute, including tribunal awards, statutory provisions and long-term implications for water sharing. “We think a suit will be a more comprehensive remedy,” the court said.

At this juncture, Singhvi sought time from the court, stating that if the bench was inclined to take this view, the Telangana government would need to consider its options. He requested that the matter be taken up after he received instructions on two specific aspects: whether the Supreme Court could direct the high-powered committee to halt its examination of the project, and whether Telangana should institute a suit under Article 131.

Appearing for Andhra Pradesh, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi strongly defended the state’s actions. He argued that there could be no legal bar or estoppel against a state merely preparing a project report intended for the welfare of its people. “A report that we want for our state—how can there be an estoppel against that?” Rohatgi asked.

Rohatgi also assured the court that the project was being conceptualised to address chronic drought conditions in parts of Andhra Pradesh, particularly in the Rayalaseema region, and that no unlawful diversion of water was being undertaken at this stage.

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter by a week, giving Telangana time to reflect on the court’s observations and decide its future course of action.

The controversy arises from a writ petition filed by the Telangana government last month, in which it sought to restrain Andhra Pradesh from moving ahead with the Polavaram–Banakacherla/Nallamalasagar Link Project. Telangana has challenged not only the execution of the project but also preliminary steps such as the preparation of the DPR and the issuance of tenders.

According to Telangana, the project envisages diverting surplus water from the Godavari river at the Polavaram reservoir in Andhra Pradesh to the drought-prone Banakacherla region in Rayalaseema, with the stated objective of improving irrigation, ensuring drinking water supply and enhancing groundwater recharge.

The state has argued that the proposal goes far beyond earlier approvals. While earlier arrangements permitted the diversion of around 80 tmc of water to the Krishna basin, Telangana alleges that the current plan contemplates transferring up to 200 tmc, posing a serious threat to its lawful share of Godavari waters.

In its petition, Telangana has alleged that Andhra Pradesh is violating the Inter-State Water Disputes Act and existing tribunal awards by advancing the project without obtaining the consent of other co-basin states. It has also accused Andhra Pradesh of bypassing statutory and regulatory requirements by proceeding with project planning and tenders without in-principle approval from the Central Water Commission and necessary clearances from the Union ministry of jal shakti.

Telangana has further relied on provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014, arguing that the law mandates cooperative federalism and equitable utilisation of shared water resources following the bifurcation of the erstwhile unified state.

The dispute has spilled over into the political arena as well. BRS leader T Harish Rao has alleged that Andhra Pradesh secured approvals from the Central Water Commission through political manoeuvring, aided by what he described as inaction on the part of the Revanth Reddy-led Telangana government—claims that have been dismissed by Telangana’s irrigation minister as misinformation.

Last week, Telangana irrigation minister N Uttam Kumar Reddy asserted that the state government has been firmly defending Telangana’s irrigation interests. He maintained that Andhra Pradesh’s proposed project violates both the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal award and the 2014 Reorganisation Act. Andhra Pradesh, meanwhile, has consistently defended the project as essential for regional development and long-term water security.

As the Supreme Court weighs the question of maintainability, the case underscores the complex legal, constitutional and political dimensions of inter-state water disputes, and the delicate balance between development imperatives and federal equity in India’s river-sharing framework.