Case Note & Summary
The Public Interest Litigation arose from acute water scarcity and drought conditions in Maharashtra in April 2016. Loksatta Movement and Foundation of Democratic Reforms, two non-profit associations registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, petitioned the Bombay High Court challenging the use of vast quantities of water by the Mumbai, Maharashtra, and Vidarbha Cricket Associations, and the Board of Control for Cricket in India, particularly for Indian Premier League matches. The petitioners alleged that maintaining cricket grounds and pitches required not less than sixty lakh litres of water, which contravened the State Water Policy's priority list that placed recreational use second to last, and violated the principles of equitable distribution. The first prayer sought a mandamus to prohibit all IPL matches in Maharashtra in 2016; this was disposed of earlier by an order dated April 13, 2016, directing such matches to be shifted outside the State. The remaining prayers sought directions to the State and the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority to ensure that water was preserved and that domestic use for drinking, cooking, and hygiene was given first priority under Sections 11 and 12 of the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act, 2005, and to reconsider the allocation of water to the cricket associations in accordance with the Water Policy. The petition named as respondents the State of Maharashtra, the Regulatory Authority, the Municipal Corporations of Mumbai, Nagpur, and Pune, the Board of Control for Cricket in India, and the three cricket associations. In their respective affidavits, the Mumbai Cricket Association stated that it used non-potable water supplied by private tankers for the Wankhede Stadium ground, with municipal water used only for office staff, toilet flushing, and spectator hand-washing, and that drinking water was provided in pouches and containers. The Maharashtra Cricket Association claimed to have constructed a sixteen-lakh-litre underground storage tank fed by rainwater harvesting and drainage, and was not drawing water from the Pawana River pending renewal of an expired agreement with the State Government. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation confirmed it had granted an eighty-millimetre diameter water connection exclusively for office and toilet needs, with no special supply for matches. The State Government was considering the renewal of the water draw agreement for a further six years. The petitioners argued that the use of water for cricket fell squarely within the recreational category and that the municipal corporations had bypassed the Water Policy priorities, especially when newspaper reports indicated that over 3,500 villages were still affected by water shortage and drought. The Court, after considering the submissions, referred extensively to an earlier Division Bench judgment in Marathwada Janta Vikas Parishad v. State of Maharashtra, which had underscored the mounting challenge of equitable water distribution in the face of population growth, climate change, and unsustainable development. Quoting that decision, the Court noted that water is a resource held in public trust, as recognized in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388, and cannot be subjected to private ownership or commercial exploitation to the detriment of the public. The Court observed that the State, as trustee, must ensure that water is available for public use and not diverted for non-essential purposes. The judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the final operative directions, but it clearly reaffirms the binding principles of equitable distribution and the public trust doctrine.
Headnote
A) Water Law - Equitable Distribution - State's Duty to Ensure Equitable Water Allocation - Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act, 2005, Sections 11, 12 - The Court, while hearing a PIL concerning water use by cricket associations during drought, referred to its earlier decision in Marathwada Janta Vikas Parishad v. State of Maharashtra which stressed that equitable distribution is a major challenge and that failure can lead to conflicts. The Court noted the respondents' affidavits regarding their water sources and the pending renewal of the water draw agreement by the State Government. (Paras 1-8) B) Environmental Law - Public Trust Doctrine - Water as a Public Trust - The Court held that water is a resource held by the State in public trust, meaning it must be used for public purpose and made available to the general public, not for private commercial purposes, as per M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388. This doctrine restricts governmental authority from permitting private ownership or commercial use that deprives the public. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the use of water by cricket associations for maintaining grounds and conducting matches, particularly during drought, contravenes the principles of equitable distribution and the State Water Policy, and whether the State and Municipal Corporations are obligated to prioritize domestic use over such use.
Final Decision
The judgment text is incomplete, but the court emphasized the public trust doctrine and equitable distribution principles. The final operative order is not available in the extracted text.
Law Points
- equitable distribution of water
- public trust doctrine
- priority of domestic use over recreational use
- adherence to water policy
