SC flags maintainability of Telangana’s plea on AP’s Godavari water diversion project

THe sublime margaret court on mon raised doubts o'er the maintainability of a judicial 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).A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution would be a “more comprehensive and effective” remedy since an inter-state water dispute lay at the heart of the controversy.The bench pointed out that the dispute essentially pertained to competing claims over Godavari river waters and the possible impact of Andhra Pradesh’s proposed project on Telangana’s share as determined by existing tribunal awards.“Ultimately, at the end of the day, it is a water dispute…and you apprehend that their project might affect your share of the Godavari water,” the bench told senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Telangana government.The bench emphasised that where the constitutional scheme envisages a specific remedy for inter-state disputes, the court ought to be slow in entertaining a writ petition under Article 32. “Our issue is maintainability. If the constitutional scheme envisages a different remedy, should we not resort to that?” the bench asked.Also Read: Northern Telangana on high alert due to rising level of Godavari RiverSinghvi, however, attempted to persuade the court that the present case warranted interference under Article 32, pointing out that the Union government had already permitted the constitution of a high-powered committee to examine the project. “I have no other remedy to stop the committee from going into the issue,” submitted the senior counsel, arguing that the formation of the committee itself justified the court’s intervention.The bench responded that Telangana’s apprehension appeared to be that the existing award of the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal could be affected by Andhra Pradesh’s proposed actions.Singhvi contended that Andhra Pradesh was likely to “siphon off several hundreds of tmc of flood water” even though the earlier tribunal award stood frozen. He also argued that the availability of a suit under Article 131 did not, per se, bar the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 32.The bench, however, remained unconvinced, reiterating that a suit between states would offer a more comprehensive framework to adjudicate the dispute. “We think a suit will be a more comprehensive remedy,” the court observed.At this stage, Singhvi sought time, stating that if the court was inclined to take that view, Telangana would consider its options. He requested that the matter be taken up after instructions on two aspects as to whether the court could direct the high-powered committee to halt the project, and whether Telangana should institute a suit under Article 131.Appearing for Andhra Pradesh, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi defended the state’s actions, arguing that there could be no estoppel against the preparation of a project report intended for state welfare. “A report that we want for our state…how can there be an estoppel against that?” he asked. Rohatgi also assured the court that the project was being conceived to address drought conditions.The court adjourned the matter by a week.The matter arises from a writ petition filed by the Telangana government last month seeking directions to restrain Andhra Pradesh from proceeding with the preparation of a detailed project report, issuance of tenders and execution of the Polavaram–Banakacherla/Nallamalasagar Link Project.Telangana has challenged the proposed diversion of Godavari river water into the Krishna basin, contending that the project threatens its lawful share of water and violates established inter-state water sharing norms.The project envisages transferring surplus water from the Godavari at the Polavaram reservoir in Andhra Pradesh to the drought-prone Banakacherla region in Rayalaseema, with the stated objective of improving irrigation, drinking water supply and groundwater recharge.According to Telangana, the proposal goes far beyond earlier approvals, with plans to divert up to 200 thousand million cubic feet (tmc) of water, as against the originally sanctioned 80 tmc for transfers to the Krishna basin.In its petition, the Telangana government alleged that the project violates the Inter-State Water Disputes Act and existing tribunal awards by proceeding without mutual consent of co-basin states. It has also accused Andhra Pradesh of bypassing statutory and regulatory protocols by advancing project planning and tenders without in-principle approval from the Central Water Commission (CWC) and requisite clearances from the Union ministry of jal shakti.Telangana has further claimed that the project runs contrary to the Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014, which mandates cooperative federalism and equitable utilisation of shared water resources following the bifurcation of the erstwhile state.The dispute has also spilled into the political arena, with BRS leader T Harish Rao alleging that Andhra Pradesh had secured approvals from the CWC through political manoeuvring amid inaction by the Revanth Reddy government -- claims rejected by Telangana’s irrigation minister as “misinformation.”Last week, Telangana irrigation minister N Uttam Kumar Reddy asserted that the government has robustly defended the state’s irrigation interests, while adding that the proposed project by the neighbouring state violates the water tribunal award and the 2014 Reorganisation Act. Andhra Pradesh, for its part, has consistently defended the project as essential for regional development and water security.