BASIC RIGHT TO CLEAN WATER: IMPLEMNETATION OF POLICIES TO MITIGATE LOSS OF PUBLIC AND CO-OPERATIVE RESPONSIBILITY.

BASIC RIGHT TO CLEAN WATER: IMPLEMNETATION OF POLICIES TO MITIGATE LOSS OF PUBLIC AND CO-OPERATIVE RESPONSIBILITY.

12 Jan, 2023

BASIC RIGHT TO CLEAN WATER: IMPLEMNETATION OF POLICIES TO MITIGATE LOSS OF PUBLIC AND CO-OPERATIVE RESPONSIBILITY.

Author – Surjit Raiguru, Student of Symbiosis Law School, Pune

ABSTRACT:

Water is a fundamental human right. It has been confirmed that water resources had been depleted faster than their replenishment capacity, resulting in water scarcity issues. This study seeks to bring the attention of the international community to the importance of implementing policies that promote genuine civic conscience and cooperation. An analysis of relevant literature and an examination of the various multilateral treaties on water resources will be conducted in order to highlight the loss of public and cooperative responsibility as well as the necessity for sanctions. It has been found that jurisdictions around the world have failed to create methods to restrict their overuse and address water scarcity in some locations. It is commonly claimed that the present crisis can only be improved by implementing policies promoting social responsibility and cooperation among businesses and organisations in general.

INTRODUCTION:

This study investigates the admissibility of human justice, focusing on the Right to Water as a component of a broader Right to Life. The Supreme Court of India has safeguarded the right to water as a fundamental human right as part of the Right to Life provided by Article 21 of the Indian constitution. Over the last three decades, the right to life has been dramatically broadened to encompass the right to health as well as the right to a clean environment, which can entail the right to safe drinking water. In India, the constitutionally protected right to safe drinking water is derived from the right to food, the right to a clean environment, and the right to health, all of which are protected under the wide banner of the Right to Life provided by Article 21 of the constitution.

Article 21, Article 39 (b) of the directing principles of state policy (DPSP), which the Constitution makes non-justiciable, affirms the principle of equitable access to the community’s economic resources. Article 39 (b) states that ‘the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good.’

FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND LITERARY REVIEW:

Until far, the Indian Courts have only safeguarded the right to safe drinking water as a deleterious right, i.e., the right to not have any sources of water contaminated. The Supreme Court articulated a basic right to a clean and healthy environment as an element of the right to life provided by Article 21 of the Indian constitution. The right to a “healthy environment” has been created as an element of the right to life underlying Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This idea was first established in the decision of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[1], and it has since been sustained and enlarged. In a flurry of water pollution lawsuits filed before it began in the early 1990s, the Supreme Court guaranteed the right to clean water as a component of the right to a healthy environment.

 The judgment of A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu[2] before the Indian Supreme Court was significant.   In this case, the Andhra Pradesh government gave an allowance to a contaminating enterprise and permitted it to be established near two major basins in the state – the Himayat Sagar lake and the Osman Sagar lake – in contravention of the Environment Protection Act of 1986. The court cited India’s engagement in the United Nations Water Conference and concluded that the right to clean drinking water is basic to life and that the state has an obligation under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its residents.

 The Supreme Court also cited Kirpal, J.’s observation in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India[3] which stated, “Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of the right to life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India….and The right to a healthy environment and sustainable development are fundamental human rights implicit in the right to ‘life’.”

Another important decision, Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India[4], provided aid to sufferers of tannery-related water contamination. In this lawsuit, a writ petition was brought against the state of Tamil Nadu’s large-scale pollution produced by industrial facilities and other enterprises. The petitioners claimed that unprocessed wastewater was being released into farm areas, streams, and open ground, eventually reaching the Palar river, which served as the primary drinking water source for the area’s people. The harmful byproducts had harmed the soil’s biophysical qualities and polluted the groundwater through capillary action. After thoroughly evaluating the facts of the matter, the Supreme Court, while acknowledging the people’s fundamental law right to a clean and healthy environment, ordered remuneration to contamination victims based on the Precautionary principle as well as the Polluter Pays principle. The court has also used the precautionary principle to avoid prospective pollution of sources of drinking water as a result of the establishment of companies in their vicinity. The court has recognized that water is a communal resource that must be kept in public trust by the state as part of its obligation to uphold the principle of intergenerational justice. By incorporating the two above-mentioned principles into the country’s environmental law, the Supreme Court has envisioned the legal system remedial means of compensating victims of delict action in water contamination cases to some extent. SC rightly held, “The constitutional and statutory provisions protect a person’s right to fresh air, clean water, and pollution-free environment, but the source of the right is the inalienable common law right of the clean environment[5]”.

In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath[6], the court rightly upheld that ‘our legal system – based on English common law – includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all-natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, air, forests, and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership.

The Supreme Court thus acknowledged a remarkable positive Right to Food under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and sought to expand the scope of the right to include not only the right to be free from hunger, but also the right to food distribution and access, as well as the right to be free from malnutrition, particularly for women, children, and the elderly. On November 28, 2001, the Supreme Court issued an unusual temporary decision directing all state governments and the Union of India to efficiently implement eight distinct officially sponsored food initiatives for the underprivileged[7]. These food security programs were proclaimed to be privileges of the poor, and the Court also set very tight time constraints for their implementation, with governments responsible for submitting conformity affidavits to the court. The Antyodaya Anna Yojna (AAY), the National Old-Age Pension Scheme (NOAPS), the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) program, the National Mid-day Meals Programme (NMMP), the Annapurna scheme, and many job initiatives that provided food for labor were among them. The Mid-Day Meal Scheme (MDMS) and the Court’s directive to all state governments to offer cooked mid-day meals in all public schools by January 2002 were the most important of the eight schemes.

During its multiple sessions, the Court urged all state governments to guarantee that all Public Distribution Shops be kept open with periodic deliveries and declared that it is the government’s primary responsibility to prevent the people suffering from famine and hunger by supplying people with access to food.

SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION:

There is no dispute that the water right is a basic human right which is rightly safeguarded. We need to advance right in India to include the right to have access to water. The imposition of this right is critical because it is frequently dependent on the natural supply available to provide such a right. Social and economic rights, such as the right to water, are notoriously politically controversial since their efficient extension necessitates the political branches to adjust their appropriation and deployment of goods under judicial discretion, often at a very systemic level.

Once incorporated and fleshed out in practice, the rhetoric of a human right to water has a propensity to disband into a variety of methods uncannily beginning to resemble consumer rights – an important element of a market state, and the urgency of the protections claim can become intertwined in a web of a complicated regulatory framework. It should not necessarily impede water rights claims. Market forces can be used to meet human needs. However, if water is a basic right, the state is accountable for ensuring its fulfillment, even if private intermediaries play a role. To summarise, governments should work together to ensure that all people have access to safe drinking water and that water is recognized as a human right. The water rights community would have a useful weapon for tackling the most fundamental failures of 21st-century development by declaring a human right to water and expressing readiness to satisfy this right for those who are currently denied it., foreign aid agencies, non-governmental organizations, and regional communities.

REFERENCES:

  • Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India  AIR 1984 SC 802
  • A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC 62
  • Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664
  • Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
  • Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (n 7) at pg. 661.
  • M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388
  • Interim Order dated 28 November 2001 in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (Above n 1)Unreported order, < http://www.righttofoodindia.org/orders/nov28.html

[1] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India  AIR 1984 SC 802

[2] A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC 62

[3] Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664

[4] Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647

[5] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (n 7) at pg. 661.

[6] M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388

[7] Interim Order dated 28 November 2001 in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (Above n 1)Unreported order, < http://www.righttofoodindia.org/orders/nov28.html>

Download Author Certificate