Supreme Court Questions Maintainability Of Telangana's Writ Petition Challenging Andhra's Polavaram Irrigation Project

The Supreme Court today questioned the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the State of Telangana against the Union and Andhra Pradesh Government, challenging the expansion of the Polavaram Multipurpose irrigation project. 

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by the State of Telangana against the Union's extension of financial assistance to Andhra Pradesh to expand the Polavaram Project, also known as Polavaram –Banakacherla” Link Project.

The writ petition also challenges the grant of environmental clearance for the project and alleges that the Detailed Project Report (DPR) violated the Central Water Commission's recommendations. 

At the outset, the CJI pointed out, "We are only on the issue of whether you should file a suit or a writ petition." 

The bench also noted that the Union is spearheading the Polavaram Irrigation Project as well and that a committee has been set up consider such issues under it. Noting the same, the CJI remarked: "The apprehension of yours is that the building of the canal will reduce your flood water; This irrigation project is a national project, nothing can be added or diverted or modified without prior permission of the Centre. The committee is set up, you please go and represent before that committee."

Sr Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state of Telangana, argued that the present writ petition was maintainable as this could not be considered a 'water dispute' and does not fall under the purview of any Tribunal under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. He added that due to violations, there was an urgent need for a stay on the project expansion. 

"My point is, I have no way of stopping this except for coming before the Supreme Court," he said. 

He further added, "Today we are at the cusp, the CWC says do not go on, I have come here under an emergency situation." 

Singhvi stressed that the present expansion of the project would aim at diverting excessive flood waters from the state of Telangana, and is in violation of the Award of the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal.  

The CJI reiterated that past disputes between two states have been addressed in the form of a suit under Article 131 and not Article 32. 

As the bench seemed to be unconvinced about the maintainability of the writ petition, Singhvi requested that the matter be listed after a week in order to consider the filing of a suit. The CJI hinted at possibiliy of directing the statutory committee to look into the issue in the present scenario : 

"There are two ways out, one is that, if we think that we can direct the statutory committee to immediately intervene, call a meeting and take a decision." 

Singhvi added, "One sentence will need to be added that they will also have the power to stop it, my problem is nothing else mylords - just consider on the balance of convenience." 

The CJI replied, "If so is made out, the committee may consider such a prayer." 

Sr. Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Balbir Singh and Jaideep Gupta appeared for the state of Andhra Pradesh. 

Rohatgi submitted that the DPR was sanctioned only after taking into consideration the comments of other stakeholders, like Maharashtra, Telangana, Karnataka, etc. 

Sr Advocate Balbir Singh submitted that the State of Telangana was deemed to have consented to the Main project, which commenced in 2004, by means of the Reorganisation Act 2014.

"So far as this particular project is concerned, the Reorganisation Act - when it was declared as a National Project, Telangana deemed to have consented to the award." 

Sr Adv. Jaideep Gupta submitted that the "petition is mala fide, the only object of it is to bring to the highest court of the land the issue which is with the Union." 

Singhvi reiterated to post the matter for Friday, to seek instructions on two aspects: (1) the committee's powers to stay the project; (2) or filing a suit.

While posting the matter for Monday, the CJI said, "Think of mediation". He added, "We will hear both sides and hope you come up with a viable solution." 

Notably, as per the award and the CWC, the approved amount of water to be diverted was 80 Thousand Million Cubic Feet (TMC) of water to the Krishna River through its canal system for use in the Krishna Delta System.

However, the plea states that the expansion would propose to divert 200 TMC instead, without the requisite approvals. The petition also raises the issue of non-approval by the CWC. It explains : 

" Government of Andhra Pradesh has already undertaken the expansion for PBLP /PNLP and only thereafter has submitted its Pre-Feasibility Report (PFR) to CWC. Further, without waiting for In-principle consent of CWC which is a prerequisite to undertake/ prepare Detailed Project Report (DPR), as per MoJS/CWC Guidelines, for appraisal of Project, and despite instructions of CWC vide letter dated 04.12.2025 not to take up DPR without In-principle consent for the same from CWC, GOAP has already floated Tenders and is in the process of awarding the same (Technical bid opening planned on 11.12.2025 Financial bid opening on 17.12.2025 and award of work likely to be within 1 week thereafter)." 

The plea was filed with the assistance of AOR Sumanth Nookala. 

Case Details: STATE OF TELANGANA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS W.P.(C) No. 1258/2025