New Delhi, Jan 12, 2026: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the writ petition filed by the Telangana government seeking to restrain Andhra Pradesh and its agencies from proceeding with preparatory and project-related activities for the Polavaram-Banakacherla/Nallamalasagar Link Project (PBLP/PNLP). The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, observed that the dispute was more appropriately resolved through a suit involving all affected states rather than via a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

While disposing of the petition, the Court granted Telangana the liberty to avail itself of any other appropriate legal remedies, including the institution of a suit, and to raise all contentions urged in the present proceedings. The bench noted, “The writ petition is disposed of as being prima facie not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner state to avail of appropriate remedy in accordance with law and raise all contentions taken in the instant petition.”

Telangana’s Petition and Arguments

Telangana had filed the writ petition citing alleged violations of a binding tribunal award governing the allocation of Godavari river waters. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Telangana, contended that Andhra Pradesh’s proposed diversion of water under the PBLP/PNLP would be illegal, exceeding the allocated quantum of water as determined by the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT). Singhvi argued that this diversion would undermine Telangana’s lawful share and violate statutory provisions.

However, the bench expressed doubts about the maintainability of the writ petition. It observed that the dispute was inter-state in nature, involving not just Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, but potentially other basin states like Karnataka and Maharashtra. Since these parties were not included in the writ proceedings, the Court indicated that a civil suit would be a more appropriate forum for a comprehensive adjudication.

“You are relying on the fact that there is a possible violation of the award. Therefore, the issues can be determined in a suit,” the bench remarked. It emphasized that civil proceedings would allow all potentially affected parties to be heard, ensuring a more inclusive and effective resolution.

Singhvi sought permission to withdraw the petition without prejudice, which the Court formally recorded, leaving Telangana free to pursue other remedies, including filing a suit under Article 131, which confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes between states.

Background of the Controversy

The dispute centers on Andhra Pradesh’s proposal to transfer surplus water from the Godavari river at the Polavaram reservoir to the drought-prone Banakacherla region in Rayalaseema. The PBLP/PNLP is a major water management initiative aimed at improving irrigation, drinking water supply, and groundwater recharge in water-stressed areas.

Telangana has consistently opposed the project, arguing that it threatens its lawful share of Godavari waters as fixed by the GWDT. According to Telangana, any unilateral diversion by Andhra Pradesh without consent from co-basin states constitutes a violation of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act and the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which mandates equitable utilisation of shared water resources.

In its petition, Telangana claimed that Andhra Pradesh intended to divert up to 200 TMC (thousand million cubic feet) of water, significantly exceeding the originally sanctioned 80 TMC for transfers to the Krishna basin. The state alleged that Andhra Pradesh was advancing project planning, tenders, and preparatory work without central approvals, including clearances from the Central Water Commission and the Union Ministry of Jal Shakti.

Supreme Court’s Previous Observations

During a previous hearing on January 5, the bench had already raised concerns regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It suggested that a suit under Article 131 would be a “more comprehensive and effective” remedy for disputes involving competing inter-state claims over Godavari river waters. The Court highlighted that the controversy involved complex issues of water allocation, compliance with tribunal awards, and inter-state impacts, all of which would be better addressed in a civil suit with all affected states as parties.

The Supreme Court also noted that the writ petition was limited to Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, ignoring other basin states whose rights and interests would be affected by the diversion. Civil proceedings, on the other hand, would allow a more inclusive adjudication, ensuring that all states impacted by the Polavaram project could present their views and evidence before the Court.

Political and Administrative Implications

The Polavaram dispute has not only legal dimensions but also political ramifications. Telangana leaders, including BRS leader T Harish Rao, have accused Andhra Pradesh of pushing the project through political maneuvering, highlighting delays or perceived inaction by the Telangana government.

Telangana’s irrigation minister, N Uttam Kumar Reddy, has maintained that the state government is vigilantly protecting its irrigation interests and that the proposed diversion would violate both the tribunal award and the provisions of the 2014 Reorganisation Act. Andhra Pradesh, meanwhile, has defended the PBLP/PNLP as a critical infrastructure project for drought-prone Rayalaseema, essential for water security, agricultural development, and socio-economic growth.

The dispute over the Polavaram link project reflects broader tensions in inter-state water sharing in India, particularly in river basins with multiple beneficiaries. While tribunals like the GWDT provide a legal framework, disputes often arise over interpretation, implementation, and new water management initiatives, making judicial intervention necessary.

Legal Path Forward

With the Supreme Court disposing of the writ petition, Telangana is now likely to explore the option of filing a civil suit under Article 131. Such a suit would allow:

1. All affected states, including Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, and Maharashtra, to be joined as parties.
2. A detailed examination of compliance with the GWDT award, including allocations and permissible diversions.
3. Consideration of the statutory and regulatory framework, including the Inter-State Water Disputes Act and the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
4. A comprehensive resolution that balances developmental needs with equitable water sharing among the basin states.

The Supreme Court’s decision to leave the door open for other remedies ensures that Telangana retains the right to pursue its claims in a more structured forum, without prejudicing its legal position. This approach reflects the Court’s preference for systemic resolution of inter-state water disputes, rather than piecemeal interventions through writ petitions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order marks a significant development in the ongoing Polavaram dispute, emphasizing the importance of inclusive adjudication in inter-state water conflicts. While Telangana’s immediate writ petition has been disposed of, the state remains empowered to pursue a civil suit under Article 131, potentially involving all affected states.

The legal proceedings that follow will determine the scope, legality, and implementation of the Polavaram-Banakacherla/Nallamalasagar Link Project, balancing Andhra Pradesh’s development goals with Telangana’s rights under the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal award. As India continues to grapple with water allocation challenges, the Polavaram dispute underscores the critical role of the judiciary in mediating complex inter-state conflicts while ensuring equitable use of shared resources.

---