A fierce legal battle over the waters of the Godavari river erupted in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, with the neighbouring states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh trading serious allegations. The Revanth Reddy-led Telangana government accused the N Chandrababu Naidu-led Andhra Pradesh government of attempting to misappropriate its share of river water through the proposed Polavaram-Nallamala Sagar Project (PNSP).
Telangana Seeks Stay, Alleges AP Defying Central Panel
Appearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing Telangana, urgently pleaded for a stay on the tendering process for the preparation of a Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the PNSP. Singhvi argued that Andhra Pradesh was proceeding with the project despite a directive from a high-powered committee led by the Chairman of the Central Water Commission, formed by the Union government, which had asked AP to hold off.
The Telangana counsel framed it as a critical issue, alleging the project was a guise to divert approximately 200 thousand million cubic feet (tmc) of water allocated to Telangana. He emphasized that Telangana is in the process of constructing various barrages to utilize its full share of 968 tmc of Godavari water and claimed the PNSP would severely cut into this allocation, making it a "huge emotive issue" for the state.
Supreme Court Questions Petition, Suggests Constitutional Route
The Supreme Court bench, however, raised a fundamental jurisdictional question. It queried whether a writ petition by a state was the appropriate legal remedy when the core dispute involved the implementation of Godavari water allocation between states—a dispute that also involves the states of Karnataka and Maharashtra. The bench asked Singhvi to take instructions within a week on whether Telangana would prefer to file a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, which would make Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra all parties to the case.
Andhra Pradesh's Defence: Using Excess Water, Accusing Obstruction
Representing Andhra Pradesh, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Jaideep Gupta, and Balbir Singh mounted a strong defence. They informed the court that the PNSP had Telangana's consent at the time of the state's bifurcation and reorganization. Rohatgi clarified that the tender in question was solely for preparing the DPR for an irrigation project designed to utilize only the excess flood water flowing through Andhra Pradesh, which is the lower riparian state.
Countering Telangana's "emotive issue" argument, advocate Jaideep Gupta questioned, "What is an emotive issue? Can one state stop an irrigation project in another state which is a lower riparian one?" Rohatgi added that the project aims to bring water to drought-prone regions and that the DPR preparation is following the approval of a pre-feasibility report. The AP side also pointedly noted that Telangana had already gained the erstwhile capital city, Hyderabad, implying unfair obstruction of its development projects.
The legal stalemate continues, with the Supreme Court awaiting Telangana's decision on the legal pathway. The outcome will have significant ramifications for water security, inter-state relations, and agricultural futures in both Telugu-speaking states.
