Supreme Court Orders Action on Water Conservation and Shortage Issues — Court emphasizes the right to water as part of the right to life and directs government action.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed by M.K. Balakrishnan and others concerning the conservation of wetlands, which include various water bodies essential for ecological balance. The petition arose due to the acute water shortage in India, attributed to the filling up of ponds and tanks by private interests for construction purposes, leading to severe consequences for both rural and urban populations. The court noted that the historical wisdom of maintaining water bodies has been forgotten, resulting in widespread water scarcity and public unrest. The court referenced a previous decision in State of Orissa vs. Government of India, where it recommended the formation of a body of scientists to address the water crisis through innovative research. The court emphasized that the right to water is integral to the right to life under Article 21, citing various precedents that affirm the necessity of water for survival and the government's obligation to protect natural resources. The court ordered the Ministry of Science and Technology to file a counter affidavit detailing measures to combat water shortages and implement the recommendations from the earlier judgment. The application for impleadment was allowed, and notices were issued to newly added states, with the matter scheduled for further hearing on April 28, 2009.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Right to Water - Right to life includes access to water - Constitution of India, Article 21 - The court recognized the right to water as part of the right to life, emphasizing the necessity of water for survival and the government's duty to ensure its availability. Held that the government must take immediate action to address water shortages (Paras 43-44).

B) Environmental Law - Conservation of Wetlands - Protection of natural water bodies - Constitution of India, Article 21 - The court expanded the scope of the writ petition to include the conservation of wetlands, highlighting the ecological importance of ponds, tanks, and other water bodies. The court directed the government to restore and maintain these resources to prevent ecological disaster (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

What measures are being taken to address the water shortage problem in India?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court ordered the Ministry of Science and Technology to file a counter affidavit within four weeks regarding measures to solve the water shortage problem and implement previous recommendations. The application for impleadment was allowed, and notices were issued to newly added states, with the matter scheduled for further hearing on April 28, 2009.

Law Points

  • Constitutional right to water
  • Environmental protection
  • Water conservation measures
  • Implementation of judicial recommendations
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2009 LawText (SC) (03) 164

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 230 of 2001

2009-03-26

Markandey Katju, B. Sudershan Reddy

Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Radhakrishna Kumar, Parmanand Pandey, S.R. Singh, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Anuvrat Sharma, Alka Sinha, T.S. Doabia, Sunita Sharma, B.V. Balaram Das, Riku Sarma, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Saumya Kundu, Kamini Jaiswal, Pinky Behera, Hemantika Wahi, Radha Shyam Jena, Naresh K. Sharma, Aruna Mathur, Vimal Dubay, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Manish Kumar, Gopal Singh, B.S. Banthia, Manish Singhvi, Milind Kumar, R.S. Suri, Ranjan Mukherjee, Sumita Hazarika, R. Ayyam Perumal, Anil Shrivastav, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, M.K. Michael, R. Nedumaran, R. Shunmugasundaram, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabu Rama Subramanian, P.V. Dinesh, Sindhu T.P., Tabrez Ahmad, Anis Suhrawardy, Anil Kumar Jha, Sanjay R. Hegde, A. Rohen Singh, Edward Belho, Rituraj Biswas, P. Athuimei R. Naga, A. Subhashini, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish K. Singh, Rahul Shukla, Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha G. Nair, R. Shunmugh Sundram, T. Harish Kumar, Manjit Singh, Harikesh Singh

M.K. Balakrishnan & Others

Union of India & Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition concerning water conservation and shortage

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought government action to address water shortages

Filing Reason

Acute water shortage and environmental degradation due to filling of water bodies

Previous Decisions

Court previously recommended formation of a scientific body to address water issues

Issues

Measures to address water shortage Constitutional right to water

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued for urgent government action on water conservation Respondents presented the need for a structured approach to water management

Ratio Decidendi

The right to water is integral to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, necessitating government action to ensure water availability and protect natural resources.

Judgment Excerpts

The right to get water is a part of right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. There is acute shortage of water in our country and one of the main reasons for that is that most of the water conservation bodies in our country such as ponds, tanks, small lakes etc. have been filled up in recent times by some greedy persons.

Procedural History

The petition was filed in 2001, and the court heard the matter on multiple occasions, including a significant hearing on March 26, 2009, where the Chief Secretaries of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh were present.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 21
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition in Preventive Detention Case Due to Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation Under West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The Court held that unexplained delay of 27 days by State ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Special Leave Petition in Police Service Promotion Dispute Due to Petitioners' Failure to Comply with Court-Imposed Deadline. Head Constables Who Missed Two-Month Willingness Filing Deadline Cannot Claim Benefit of Later Circu...