In this paper, we analyze a major controversy regarding the allocation of water for Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket matches during a period of extreme drought in the state of Maharashtra in India. We use a discursive approach to public policy to understand water policy production and to analyze the competing narratives on water advanced by opposing discourse coalitions during the ‘IPL vs. drought’ controversy. We find that the neoliberal view of ‘water as an economic good’ is dominant and institutionalized in the water allocation priorities determined by the Maharashtra State government. This is resisted by civil society actors like Loksatta and by the Indian judiciary, who view ‘water as a Human Right.’ Our reading of the ‘IPL vs. drought’ public interest litigation (PIL) shows that Loksatta’s decision to target water allocation for the IPL through the Courts leverages the popularity of the IPL in the Indian media, as well as the uneven unfolding of neoliberalism across institutions of the state in India. At the same time, Loksatta’s PIL focuses solely on the IPL and does not pay attention to the water allocation to larger users like industry and sugarcane cultivation that best represent the institutionalization of the neoliberal view of water in Maharashtra. We argue that the focus on the IPL makes it the site of contesting water policy on ideological grounds. We conclude by examining the challenge provided by Loksatta’s PIL to the dominant neoliberal view of water in Maharashtra.