In a significant strategic shift in the ongoing inter-state river water conflict, the State of Telangana has withdrawn its Writ Petition filed in the Supreme Court against the Union Government and the State of Andhra Pradesh regarding the expansion of the Polavaram Multipurpose Irrigation Project.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, permitted the withdrawal, granting Telangana the liberty to institute a fresh Original Suit under Article 131 of the Constitution.
The State of Telangana had initially approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 (Writ Jurisdiction), challenging the Union's financial assistance for the expansion of the Polavaram project and alleging violations of the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT) Award.
However, during the hearing, the Bench raised concerns about the maintainability of a Writ Petition for such a complex inter-state dispute.
- Justice Bagchi pointed out that the GWDT Award involves multiple stakeholders, including Maharashtra and Karnataka, who were not made parties to this specific writ petition.
- The Court observed that a Writ Petition is often ill-suited for disputes where detailed evidence and the rights of multiple states need to be adjudicated comprehensively. Such matters typically fall under the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Article 131), which is designed specifically for disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, or between States.
Recognizing this procedural propriety, Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi, appearing for Telangana, requested to withdraw the petition to file a comprehensive Civil Suit, stating, "I cannot be remediless everywhere."
The heart of Telangana's grievance lies in the alleged unauthorized expansion of the Polavaram Project (specifically the "Polavaram–Banakacherla Link Project").
- Water Diversion limits: Telangana contends that the GWDT Award and the Central Water Commission (CWC) approved the diversion of 80 TMC (Thousand Million Cubic Feet) of Godavari water to the Krishna River. However, the new expansion allegedly proposes to divert 200 TMC, far exceeding the permitted limit.
- Lack of Approvals: The petition claimed that the Andhra Pradesh government floated tenders for this expansion without obtaining the mandatory "In-principle consent" from the CWC, violating the Ministry of Jal Shakti guidelines.
- Flood Risks: Telangana argues that this expansion creates a risk of diverting floodwaters in a manner that violates the tribunal's award, potentially affecting the riparian rights of upper and lower riparian states.
The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition as "prima facie not maintainable" but kept the legal avenue open. Telangana is now expected to file a fresh Original Suit. This new suit will likely include Karnataka and Maharashtra as parties, ensuring a holistic adjudication of the Godavari water sharing arrangement.
This development serves as a procedural lesson in constitutional law: while Article 32 is a powerful tool for fundamental rights, the exclusive domain of Article 131 remains the proper channel for federal disputes between States.