Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 38 (RAJ)

Environment & Social Action v. State of Rajasthan

2006-01-04

MANAK MOHTA

body2006
Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The instant PIL has been filed by the students of National Law University namely Jagdish C. Solanki and Sandeep Pathak in the name of NLU students group for protection of environment and social action inviting the attention of this Court as to the supply of drinking contaminated water through different sources in villages Patwa, Devariya, Berkala and Nimbol of District, Pali. The students collected the water from aforesaid villages in presence of the respective Sarpanchas. The sample of water was sent for testing to the Ground Water Department. The water testing report given by the Laboratory of the Ground Water Department has been placed on record as Annexure-C. On the basis of the report, it is claimed that water supply in the aforesaid villages is far below the standard provided by Bureau of Indian Standard (hereinafter referred to as the BIS). 2. A counter has been filed supported by the affidavit of Shri B.L. Suthar, Superintending Engineer, PHED, Pali. It is denied that the water supply to the subject villages is unsafe being contaminated. It is also denied that the water sample does not satisfy the standard provided by the BIS. An attempt has been made to clarify the position stating that the petitioners are relying on required permissible limits under Head 3 of Annexure D, whereas the required permissible limit for the present controversy where alternate source of water is not available falls under Head 5 of Annexure D. The respondent Department has also placed on record copies of the chemical examination of the water of the said villages as Annexure R/1. The report shows that water is almost within the required permissible limit. It is also submitted that small variation of chemical para-meters of water is not much so as to result into unsafe and contaminated water. It is also asserted that no disease as referred to by the petitioners in the writ petition has been reported in any of the villages. A certificate of the competent authority in that regard has also been placed on record. In a rejoinder the petitioners have tried to show that the report submitted by the Department is not correct. It is also submitted that even if the report of the Department is accepted the water supply to the subject villages does not satisfy the required standard. Mr. Sandeep Pathak argued the matter emphasizing the importance of potable water. In a rejoinder the petitioners have tried to show that the report submitted by the Department is not correct. It is also submitted that even if the report of the Department is accepted the water supply to the subject villages does not satisfy the required standard. Mr. Sandeep Pathak argued the matter emphasizing the importance of potable water. He has referred to the Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, WTO, Geneva, 3rd Ed., 2004 and Rosalie Bertell on Fluorides, International Institute of Concern for Public Health, November, 1999. 3. It is not necessary to deal with the reports referred to by Mr. Sandeep Pathak as it is now well settled that right to safe drinking water is an integral part of right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1991 SC 420 , the Apex Court observed that:- "The right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution." 4. Thus, the Supreme Court in its interpretation of Article 21, has facilitated the emergence of an environmental jurisprudence in India, while also strengthening human rights jurisprudence. There are numerous decisions wherein the right to a clean environment, drinking water, a pollution-free atmosphere etc. have been given the status of inalienable human rights and, therefore, fundamental rights of Indian citizens. 5. Before parting with, we record our appreciation for the young Law Students of NLU, Jodhpur, particularly the petitioners Sandeep Pathak and Jagdish Solanki for not only taking a noble cause before the Court but also effectively pleading. 6. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to ensure supply of safe drinking water to the subject villages. No order as to cost.