Supreme Court suggests civil suit route in Polavaram–Nallamala Sagar dispute
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday suggested that Telangana file a civil suit instead of a writ petition in the Polavaram–Nallamala Sagar dispute and asked the state to place its concerns before the committee set up by the Centre.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant expressed doubts over the maintainability of Telangana’s petition under Article 32. The court said inter-state disputes involving the Centre normally required adjudication under Article 131. It advised Telangana to consider a civil suit if it sought to restrain Andhra Pradesh.
The court made the remarks while hearing Telangana’s challenge to Andhra Pradesh calling tenders for preparing a DPR. Telangana argued that Andhra Pradesh moved ahead before the Central Water Commission approved the pre-feasibility report. The Bench adjourned the hearing to the 12th to allow Telangana time to consider its options.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said Telangana could approach the Centre’s high-level committee to present its objections. He added that if Andhra Pradesh continued works without waiting for approvals, the committee could examine the issue. The Bench also suggested mediation as an option for resolving the dispute.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Telangana, sought interim protection. He said Andhra Pradesh violated the Godavari Tribunal award and ignored repeated directions from the CWC and the Union Jal Shakti Ministry. He alleged that Andhra Pradesh attempted to divert an additional 200 TMC of floodwaters beyond its entitled share.
Singhvi said Telangana was entitled to 968 TMC under the tribunal award, while the Andhra Pradesh Godavari basin received 484.5 TMC. He urged the court to stay Andhra Pradesh’s actions until the committee submitted its report.
Polavaram Nallamala Sagar dispute heard amid sharp arguments
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Andhra Pradesh, rejected Telangana’s claims. He said the state prepared the project report only for internal purposes. He added that Andhra Pradesh planned to utilise floodwaters for drought-hit regions and was not taking Telangana’s share.
Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta said Telangana wrongly linked Polavaram with the Polavaram–Nallamala Sagar proposal. He said the CWC was examining the issue and no DPR could be submitted without approval. Telangana Advocate General Sudarshan Reddy countered that the CWC had rejected Andhra Pradesh’s proposal, which Gupta denied.
The Chief Justice questioned Telangana’s decision to invoke Article 32. He said the Constitution provided a specific route for disputes between states and the Union. He asked whether a writ petition was appropriate in such cases.
Singhvi said Telangana approached the court due to urgency, as Andhra Pradesh did not stop works despite CWC directions. He said the Centre and the CWC were parties in the writ. He sought time to consider filing a civil suit if interim protection was granted.
The Bench adjourned the matter to next Monday. It again urged both states to explore mediation. Justice Surya Kant said the committee could call both states for an early meeting if required.
At the end of the hearing, the Chief Justice made a light remark while calming counsel during heated exchanges, saying water disputes seemed to generate unusual energy among lawyers.
